Message ("Your message dated Sun, 26 Nov 2006 07:58:11...")

2006-11-25 Thread L-Soft list server at LISTS.WAYNE.EDU (1.8d)
Your message dated Sun, 26 Nov 2006 07:58:11 +0900 with subject "Returned
mail: Data  format error"  has been  submitted to  the moderators  of the
COE_ALUMNI list.


Re: Possible interference between reiser4 and usb-storage?

2006-11-25 Thread Clemens Eisserer

Hi again,

Sorry but I wonder why you worry about my setup...


The kernel is also something that should arguably take up less RAM. For
one thing, it can't be swapped out...

Well I am completly happy with my kernel build - the executable is
about 1.5mb which I don't care at all. The ~0.2mb I would save with O2
don't matter at all.
Another more dramatic effect which needs to be analyzed are L1/L2
cache misses which are more likely to occur with larger code - but
since the LZO-code of Reiser4 is very small it fits into L1 anyway.


biggest optimization you do when compiling your own kernel is selecting
a CPU.

Well but at least for kernel 2.6.19 it does not make any difference if
you select p-pro, p2, p3 or p4 - the emitted code will alway be i686
compatible, only instruction sceduling is tuned for the given CPU.
Thats why I altered my Makefile.cpu to : cflags-$(CONFIG_MPENTIUM4) +=
-march=pentium4 -mno-sse -mno-sse2 -mtune=pentium4

lg Clemens


Re: Possible interference between reiser4 and usb-storage?

2006-11-25 Thread Clemens Eisserer

Hi again,


..."after some time", so right after mkfs df(1) is telling the truth?
Does it drop to 52MB all of a sudden or does it decrease slowly? does it
happen with other/former kernels too?

Well the cable was bad - it worked well on another computer but on
mine it lead to usb read failures.
It never drops to 52mb, it gros to a 55GB disk, this happened as soon
as I got messages about invalid fat read operations on syslog. (caused
by the usb problems)


Does it happen without the tweak? Why are you using -O3 anyway, does it
really make a difference?

Don't know since it works now. Well under normal circumstances I guess
-O3 does not make much difference (since kernel is much more "generic"
code instead of numbercrunching stuff) but since I use cryptocompress
at least reiser4 is crunching numbers ;)

lg Clemens

PS: I am really impressed about the stability of reiser4 - I never
ever had a single problem. However performance is terrible with
cryptocompress enabled:
- Drive does way too much seeks
- Directory listing is slow - a directory listing using konqueror
takes about 10s the first time I open konqueror (with 148files/folders
in it), the second time its as fast as it should.
- Writes block sometimes the system, nerving while watching video or
playing games.
- Delete operations sometimes take a lot of time (deleting a e.g.
500mb video file).

lg Clemens