On Fri, Dec 11, 2009 at 12:10:59AM +0800, Chan Chung Hang Christopher wrote:
> Mathieu Baudier wrote:
> >> LVM like md raid and drbd is a layered block device and
> >> If you turn the wire caches off on the HDs then there is no problem,
> >> but HDs aren't designed to perform to spec with the write
> No mention of barriers in the man page, I'm also getting confused. is
> device mapper used for software raid - i.e. /dev/mdX?
Nope. Software raid is the md layer. Nothing to do with dm. Two separate
layers although they share a bit of stuff.
> If so what are the implications of barriers and
Chan Chung Hang Christopher wrote:
Mathieu Baudier wrote:
LVM like md raid and drbd is a layered block device and
If you turn the wire caches off on the HDs then there is no problem,
but HDs aren't designed to perform to spec with the write cache
disabled they expect important data is written
Mathieu Baudier wrote:
>> LVM like md raid and drbd is a layered block device and
>> If you turn the wire caches off on the HDs then there is no problem,
>> but HDs aren't designed to perform to spec with the write cache
>> disabled they expect important data is written with FUA access (forced
>> u
> LVM like md raid and drbd is a layered block device and
> If you turn the wire caches off on the HDs then there is no problem,
> but HDs aren't designed to perform to spec with the write cache
> disabled they expect important data is written with FUA access (forced
> unit access), so performance
On Dec 10, 2009, at 4:28 AM, Timo Schoeler
wrote:
> [off list]
>
> Thanks for your eMail, Ross. So, reading all the stuff here I'm
> really
> concerned about moving all our data to such a system. The reason
> we're
> moving is mainly, but not only the longisch fsck UFS (
Timo Schoeler wrote:
> [off list]
>
>
> Thanks for your eMail, Ross. So, reading all the stuff here I'm really
> concerned about moving all our data to such a system. The reason we're
> moving is mainly, but not only the longisch fsck UFS (FreeBSD) needs
> after a crash. XFS s
[off list]
Thanks for your eMail, Ross. So, reading all the stuff here I'm really
concerned about moving all our data to such a system. The reason we're
moving is mainly, but not only the longisch fsck UFS (FreeBSD) needs
after a crash. XFS seemed to me to fit perfectly as I
Timo Schoeler wrote:
> thus Christopher Chan spake:
>>> Thanks for your eMail, Ross. So, reading all the stuff here I'm really
>>> concerned about moving all our data to such a system. The reason we're
>>> moving is mainly, but not only the longisch fsck UFS (FreeBSD) needs
>>> after a crash. XF
thus Christopher Chan spake:
>> Thanks for your eMail, Ross. So, reading all the stuff here I'm really
>> concerned about moving all our data to such a system. The reason we're
>> moving is mainly, but not only the longisch fsck UFS (FreeBSD) needs
>> after a crash. XFS seemed to me to fit perfe
> Thanks for your eMail, Ross. So, reading all the stuff here I'm really
> concerned about moving all our data to such a system. The reason we're
> moving is mainly, but not only the longisch fsck UFS (FreeBSD) needs
> after a crash. XFS seemed to me to fit perfectly as I never had issues
> wi
thus Ross Walker spake:
> On Dec 9, 2009, at 10:39 AM, Timo Schoeler
> wrote:
>
>> thus Ross Walker spake:
>>> On Dec 9, 2009, at 8:05 AM, Timo Schoeler
>>> wrote:
>>>
Hi list,
during the last days there was a discussion going on about the
stability
of XFS; though I my
On Dec 9, 2009, at 10:39 AM, Timo Schoeler
wrote:
> thus Ross Walker spake:
>> On Dec 9, 2009, at 8:05 AM, Timo Schoeler
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi list,
>>>
>>> during the last days there was a discussion going on about the
>>> stability
>>> of XFS; though I myself used XFS heavily and didn't run in
thus Ross Walker spake:
> On Dec 9, 2009, at 8:05 AM, Timo Schoeler
> wrote:
>
>> Hi list,
>>
>> during the last days there was a discussion going on about the
>> stability
>> of XFS; though I myself used XFS heavily and didn't run into issues
>> yet,
>> I'd like to ask something *before* w
On Dec 9, 2009, at 8:05 AM, Timo Schoeler
wrote:
> Hi list,
>
> during the last days there was a discussion going on about the
> stability
> of XFS; though I myself used XFS heavily and didn't run into issues
> yet,
> I'd like to ask something *before* we create our next generation data
> s
Hi list,
during the last days there was a discussion going on about the stability
of XFS; though I myself used XFS heavily and didn't run into issues yet,
I'd like to ask something *before* we create our next generation data
storage backend...
Les Mikesell wrote in [0] about issues in the comb
16 matches
Mail list logo
