Re: Linux 2.2.18pre22
Compile failed: megaraid.c: In function `mega_findCard': megaraid.c:1906: warning: implicit declaration of function `pci_resource_start' drivers/scsi/scsi.a(megaraid.o): In function `mega_findCard': megaraid.o(.text+0x19a7): undefined reference to `pci_resource_start' Seems a #include is missing here. Michael -- Michael Marxmeier Marxmeier Software AG E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Besenbruchstrasse 9 Phone : +49 202 2431440 42285 Wuppertal, Germany Fax : +49 202 2431420 http://www.marxmeier.com/ - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: e2fs performance as function of block size
Alan Cox wrote: > I see higher performance with 4K block sizes. I should see higher > latency too but have never been able to measure it. Maybe it depends > on the file system. > It certainly depends on the nature of requests If the files get somewhat bigger (eg. > 1G) having a bigger block size also greatly reduces the ext2 overhead. Especially fsync() used to be really bad on big file but choosing a bigger block size changed a lot. If the database used by the original poster is based on something like c-isam then (AFAIR) it is in fact using 1k blocks which may explain the better results of 1k block size. With a 100 MB file size fs management overhead should not be that visible. Michael -- Michael Marxmeier Marxmeier Software AG E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Besenbruchstrasse 9 Phone : +49 202 2431440 42285 Wuppertal, Germany Fax : +49 202 2431420 http://www.marxmeier.com/ - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
