Again,
thanks for the confirmation
On Thu, Apr 3, 2014 at 5:14 AM, Leon Fauster wrote:
> Am 03.04.2014 um 04:15 schrieb Grant Street :
>
> > On 03/04/14 12:34, Rita wrote:
> >> How come I don't see any changes in the Centos 6.{3,4,5} release which
> >> mention updates to cachefs?
> >
> > I don
Am 03.04.2014 um 04:15 schrieb Grant Street :
> On 03/04/14 12:34, Rita wrote:
>> How come I don't see any changes in the Centos 6.{3,4,5} release which
>> mention updates to cachefs?
>
> I don't know why they weren't in the release notesmaybe because it's
> a preview release? They were issu
Hi
We are testing out the efficiency of cachefs and I was wondering what
values other people use to decide if
* cachefs is providing value?
* cache size is the right/best/optimal size?
* There is enough cache hits to make it worth while?
* what files are being re-used(read from cache) the most?
*
re hit with bugs in 6.2 6.3 and 6.4.
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> View this message in context:
>> http://centos.1050465.n5.nabble.com/CentOS-cachefs-tp5724928p5725725.html
>> Sent from the CentOS mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>>
gt;
> --
> View this message in context:
> http://centos.1050465.n5.nabble.com/CentOS-cachefs-tp5724928p5725725.html
> Sent from the CentOS mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
> ___
> CentOS mailing list
> CentOS@centos.org
> htt
We are using CentOS 6.5 and it has been very stable.
we were hit with bugs in 6.2 6.3 and 6.4.
--
View this message in context:
http://centos.1050465.n5.nabble.com/CentOS-cachefs-tp5724928p5725725.html
Sent from the CentOS mailing list archive at Nabble.com
Yes, compiler cache is different. I suppose I should ask is there something
similar to cache?
On Fri, Mar 7, 2014 at 5:24 AM, Nux! wrote:
> On 02.03.2014 15:58, Rita wrote:
> > thanks steve. seems like we are in the same boat.
> >
> > I was wondering if there was an alternative to cachefs lik
Am 01.03.2014 um 13:48 schrieb Rita :
> has anyone been using cachefs with 6.x series? i have tried using it but i
> keep getting hung processes after 2 weeks.
>
> ATM, running 6.3 but was curious if its more stable on Centos 6.5?
we use it with nfs (latest EL6 OS version). In the last year we h
On 02.03.2014 15:58, Rita wrote:
> thanks steve. seems like we are in the same boat.
>
> I was wondering if there was an alternative to cachefs like
> http://ccache.samba.org/
I don't see how a compiler cache could help you with your problem.
That's a totally different thing.
HTH
Lucian
--
Se
thanks steve. seems like we are in the same boat.
I was wondering if there was an alternative to cachefs like
http://ccache.samba.org/
On Sat, Mar 1, 2014 at 9:10 AM, Steven Tardy wrote:
>
> https://access.redhat.com/site/documentation/en-US/Red_Hat_Enterprise_Linux/6/html-single/Storage_Adm
https://access.redhat.com/site/documentation/en-US/Red_Hat_Enterprise_Linux/6/html-single/Storage_Administration_Guide/#rhel6storage-whatsnew
fs-cache is a tech preview(Zero support from redhat).
Tried cachefs on a few servers(don't remember if it was rhel 6.1 or 6.2 at the
time), had problems (
has anyone been using cachefs with 6.x series? i have tried using it but i
keep getting hung processes after 2 weeks.
ATM, running 6.3 but was curious if its more stable on Centos 6.5?
--
--- Get your facts first, then you can distort them as you please.--
___
12 matches
Mail list logo
