Search String: Display: Description: Sort:

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*xfs\s+lockup\s+on\s+2\.4\.6\-SMP\s+kernel\s+with\s+1\.1TB\s+filesystem\s*$/: 21 ]

Total 21 documents matching your query.

1. xfs lockup on 2.4.6-SMP kernel with 1.1TB filesystem (score: 1)
Author: xx>
Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2001 18:30:53 +0300 (EEST)
OK, this seems to be deterministic and not a HW-problem.. I am testing xfs on a brand new linux file server having a 1.1T xfs filesystem in dual processor (Intel III Xeon 1GHz) motherboard with 1G me
/archives/xfs/2001-07/msg00726.html (8,923 bytes)

2. Re: xfs lockup on 2.4.6-SMP kernel with 1.1TB filesystem (score: 1)
Author: xx>
Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2001 10:53:41 -0500
Could you possibly try the cvs tree, Linus was still working deadlocks out of the memory allocation/reclaim end of things up until 2.4.7-pre2. XFS and ext2 will almost certainly push things in differ
/archives/xfs/2001-07/msg00727.html (11,847 bytes)

3. Re: xfs lockup on 2.4.6-SMP kernel with 1.1TB filesystem (score: 1)
Author: xx>
Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2001 20:38:28 +0300 (EEST)
OK I'll try it.. Right, it has now been running longer than ever before without a lockup. However, the performance is very bad. But it just might be caused by the simultaneous RAID resync I am doing
/archives/xfs/2001-07/msg00734.html (9,976 bytes)

4. Re: xfs lockup on 2.4.6-SMP kernel with 1.1TB filesystem (score: 1)
Author: xx>
Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2001 13:30:38 -0500
Yes, the resync will crucify performance until it is complete. I think you can control the rate it runs at - I would get it out of the way as soon as possible, I think it has nasty cache invalidatio
/archives/xfs/2001-07/msg00741.html (10,884 bytes)

5. Re: xfs lockup on 2.4.6-SMP kernel with 1.1TB filesystem (score: 1)
Author: xx>
Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2001 21:47:09 +0300 (EEST)
Does that mean, that XFS could have problems with SW RAID rebuild after a disk failure? After I get things running, I'm going to test what happens when I remove a disk from hotswap and plug it back a
/archives/xfs/2001-07/msg00744.html (8,942 bytes)

6. Re: xfs lockup on 2.4.6-SMP kernel with 1.1TB filesystem (score: 1)
Author: xx>
Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2001 08:17:43 +0200
from mobile.sauter-bc.com (unknown [10.1.6.21]) by basel1.sauter-bc.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DC0C557306; Wed, 18 Jul 2001 08:27:20 +0200 (CEST) Cc: linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx Organization: Sauter AG,
/archives/xfs/2001-07/msg00788.html (11,141 bytes)

7. Re: xfs lockup on 2.4.6-SMP kernel with 1.1TB filesystem (score: 1)
Author: xx>
Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2001 08:29:17 +0200
from mobile.sauter-bc.com (unknown [10.1.6.21]) by basel1.sauter-bc.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 297C157306; Wed, 18 Jul 2001 08:38:55 +0200 (CEST) Cc: linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx Organization: Sauter AG,
/archives/xfs/2001-07/msg00790.html (10,031 bytes)

8. xfs lockup on 2.4.6-SMP kernel with 1.1TB filesystem (score: 1)
Author: xxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2001 18:30:53 +0300 (EEST)
OK, this seems to be deterministic and not a HW-problem.. I am testing xfs on a brand new linux file server having a 1.1T xfs filesystem in dual processor (Intel III Xeon 1GHz) motherboard with 1G me
/archives/xfs/2001-07/msg02017.html (8,923 bytes)

9. Re: xfs lockup on 2.4.6-SMP kernel with 1.1TB filesystem (score: 1)
Author: xxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2001 10:53:41 -0500
Could you possibly try the cvs tree, Linus was still working deadlocks out of the memory allocation/reclaim end of things up until 2.4.7-pre2. XFS and ext2 will almost certainly push things in differ
/archives/xfs/2001-07/msg02018.html (11,847 bytes)

10. Re: xfs lockup on 2.4.6-SMP kernel with 1.1TB filesystem (score: 1)
Author: xxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2001 20:38:28 +0300 (EEST)
OK I'll try it.. Right, it has now been running longer than ever before without a lockup. However, the performance is very bad. But it just might be caused by the simultaneous RAID resync I am doing
/archives/xfs/2001-07/msg02025.html (9,976 bytes)

11. Re: xfs lockup on 2.4.6-SMP kernel with 1.1TB filesystem (score: 1)
Author: xxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2001 13:30:38 -0500
Yes, the resync will crucify performance until it is complete. I think you can control the rate it runs at - I would get it out of the way as soon as possible, I think it has nasty cache invalidatio
/archives/xfs/2001-07/msg02032.html (10,884 bytes)

12. Re: xfs lockup on 2.4.6-SMP kernel with 1.1TB filesystem (score: 1)
Author: xxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2001 21:47:09 +0300 (EEST)
Does that mean, that XFS could have problems with SW RAID rebuild after a disk failure? After I get things running, I'm going to test what happens when I remove a disk from hotswap and plug it back a
/archives/xfs/2001-07/msg02035.html (8,942 bytes)

13. Re: xfs lockup on 2.4.6-SMP kernel with 1.1TB filesystem (score: 1)
Author: xxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2001 08:17:43 +0200
from mobile.sauter-bc.com (unknown [10.1.6.21]) by basel1.sauter-bc.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DC0C557306; Wed, 18 Jul 2001 08:27:20 +0200 (CEST) Cc: linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx Organization: Sauter AG,
/archives/xfs/2001-07/msg02079.html (11,141 bytes)

14. Re: xfs lockup on 2.4.6-SMP kernel with 1.1TB filesystem (score: 1)
Author: xxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2001 08:29:17 +0200
from mobile.sauter-bc.com (unknown [10.1.6.21]) by basel1.sauter-bc.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 297C157306; Wed, 18 Jul 2001 08:38:55 +0200 (CEST) Cc: linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx Organization: Sauter AG,
/archives/xfs/2001-07/msg02081.html (10,031 bytes)

15. xfs lockup on 2.4.6-SMP kernel with 1.1TB filesystem (score: 1)
Author: Jani Jaakkola <jjaakkol@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2001 18:30:53 +0300 (EEST)
OK, this seems to be deterministic and not a HW-problem.. I am testing xfs on a brand new linux file server having a 1.1T xfs filesystem in dual processor (Intel III Xeon 1GHz) motherboard with 1G me
/archives/xfs/2001-07/msg03308.html (8,923 bytes)

16. Re: xfs lockup on 2.4.6-SMP kernel with 1.1TB filesystem (score: 1)
Author: Steve Lord <lord@xxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2001 10:53:41 -0500
Could you possibly try the cvs tree, Linus was still working deadlocks out of the memory allocation/reclaim end of things up until 2.4.7-pre2. XFS and ext2 will almost certainly push things in differ
/archives/xfs/2001-07/msg03309.html (11,937 bytes)

17. Re: xfs lockup on 2.4.6-SMP kernel with 1.1TB filesystem (score: 1)
Author: Jani Jaakkola <jjaakkol@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2001 20:38:28 +0300 (EEST)
OK I'll try it.. Right, it has now been running longer than ever before without a lockup. However, the performance is very bad. But it just might be caused by the simultaneous RAID resync I am doing
/archives/xfs/2001-07/msg03316.html (10,008 bytes)

18. Re: xfs lockup on 2.4.6-SMP kernel with 1.1TB filesystem (score: 1)
Author: Steve Lord <lord@xxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2001 13:30:38 -0500
Yes, the resync will crucify performance until it is complete. I think you can control the rate it runs at - I would get it out of the way as soon as possible, I think it has nasty cache invalidatio
/archives/xfs/2001-07/msg03323.html (10,974 bytes)

19. Re: xfs lockup on 2.4.6-SMP kernel with 1.1TB filesystem (score: 1)
Author: Jani Jaakkola <jjaakkol@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2001 21:47:09 +0300 (EEST)
Does that mean, that XFS could have problems with SW RAID rebuild after a disk failure? After I get things running, I'm going to test what happens when I remove a disk from hotswap and plug it back a
/archives/xfs/2001-07/msg03326.html (8,974 bytes)

20. Re: xfs lockup on 2.4.6-SMP kernel with 1.1TB filesystem (score: 1)
Author: Simon Matter <simon.matter@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2001 08:17:43 +0200
from mobile.sauter-bc.com (unknown [10.1.6.21]) by basel1.sauter-bc.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DC0C557306; Wed, 18 Jul 2001 08:27:20 +0200 (CEST) Cc: linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx Organization: Sauter AG,
/archives/xfs/2001-07/msg03370.html (11,188 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 20
Page: [1] [2]
This search system is powered by Namazu