For what it's worth, the patches look good to me but I didn't test them.
Thanks for looking! Is there anything still required for the patches to be
committed?
Cheers,
Thiemo
On Sat, 2013-09-28 at 20:51 +0200, Thiemo Nagel wrote:
For what it's worth, the patches look good to me but I didn't
test them.
Thanks for looking! Is there anything still required for the patches
to be committed?
Dmitrijs, please can you review Thiemo's patches and apply
On Mon, 2013-09-16 at 21:18 +0200, Thiemo Nagel wrote:
Hello Ben,
thanks for your input! I'm attaching a series of patches to wrap up
what we've discussed so far, more details are in the commit messages
quoted below.
I've tested the patches by running blockdev-wipe, they are looking
Hi Thiemo
Thanks for working on this.
Thiemo Nagel thiemo.na...@gmail.com writes:
Hello Ben,
thanks for your input! I'm attaching a series of patches to wrap up what
we've discussed so far, more details are in the commit messages quoted
below.
I've tested the patches by running
Hello Gaudenz,
thank you for your email!
Any reason why you choose 512k? If I understand your benchmarks right,
doubling this to 1M yelds about another 27% gain.
I'm sorry, I forgot to mention that I've re-run the benchmarks. After
removing O_SYNC, the performance was identical for block
Hi
Thiemo Nagel thiemo.na...@gmail.com writes:
Hello Gaudenz,
thank you for your email!
Any reason why you choose 512k? If I understand your benchmarks right,
doubling this to 1M yelds about another 27% gain.
I'm sorry, I forgot to mention that I've re-run the benchmarks. After
If we are changing this anyway, maybe it's a good time to also make the
template partman-crypto/progress/erase a bit more explicit about
canceling.
I fully agree!
It currently reads: Erasing data on ${DEVICE}. Maybe something like
Erasing data on ${DEVICE}. To continue without ereasing
(let's drop CC: I believe that all participants to this discussion are
subscribed to debian-boot, that receves the bug contributions for D-I packages)
Quoting Thiemo Nagel (thiemo.na...@gmail.com):
It currently reads: Erasing data on ${DEVICE}. Maybe something like
Erasing data on ${DEVICE}.
Hello Ben,
thanks for your input! I'm attaching a series of patches to wrap up what
we've discussed so far, more details are in the commit messages quoted
below.
I've tested the patches by running blockdev-wipe, they are looking good. I
haven't tried to build the installer with the new block-dev
I've done another series of benchmarks, measuring time in seconds to write
915 MB. (That is equivalent to 20 stars of output by blockdev-wipe. n/a
values simply haven't been measured.) I've tried two different settings
for speed_limit_min:
time0: speed_limit_min=0
time1: speed_limit_min=1000
On Sat, 2013-09-14 at 23:33 +0200, Thiemo Nagel wrote:
[...]
What I take away from this: For optimal performance, the frequency of
syncs should be kept low, probably well below 50 Hz, ideally as low as
possible. I'd be in favour of removing them altogether, but there
were some OOM issues
11 matches
Mail list logo
