On Sun, Jun 10, 2001 at 04:14:10AM +0800, Jason Lim wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Actually, I thought they increased performance mainly if you were doing
> large file transfers and such, and that small random file transfers were
> not help (even hindered) by reiserFS. Don't flame me if I'm wrong as I
> haven't
Hi,
Actually, I thought they increased performance mainly if you were doing
large file transfers and such, and that small random file transfers were
not help (even hindered) by reiserFS. Don't flame me if I'm wrong as I
haven't done huge amounts of research into this, but this is just what
I've he
On Sun, Jun 10, 2001 at 04:14:10AM +0800, Jason Lim wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Actually, I thought they increased performance mainly if you were doing
> large file transfers and such, and that small random file transfers were
> not help (even hindered) by reiserFS. Don't flame me if I'm wrong as I
> haven'
On Sun, Jun 10, 2001 at 02:04:36AM +0800, Jason Lim wrote:
> I'm not exactly sure how the Linux kernel would handle this.
>
[...]
>
> Anyway... as for the raid solution, is there anything I should look out
> for BEFORE i start implementing it? Like any particular disk or ext2
> settings that woul
I'm not exactly sure how the Linux kernel would handle this.
Right now, the swap is untouched. If the server needed more ram, wouldn't
it be swapping something... anything? I mean, it currently has 0kb in
swap, and still has free memory.
Here is a recent top:
101 processes: 97 sleeping, 3 runnin
Hi,
Actually, I thought they increased performance mainly if you were doing
large file transfers and such, and that small random file transfers were
not help (even hindered) by reiserFS. Don't flame me if I'm wrong as I
haven't done huge amounts of research into this, but this is just what
I've h
On Saturday 09 June 2001 08:23, Jason Lim wrote:
> Well... I'm not sure if you saw the "top" output I sent to the list a
> while back, but the swap isn't touched at all. The 128M ram seems to be
> sufficient at this time. I'm not sure that throwing more memory at it
> would help much, would it? I t
On Saturday 09 June 2001 01:11, Rich Puhek wrote:
> Memory memory memory! True, memory is not currently a limiting factor,
> but it likely could be if he were running BIND locally. As for making
> sure that the server is not authoratative for other domains, that will
> help keep other DNS demands t
On Sun, Jun 10, 2001 at 02:04:36AM +0800, Jason Lim wrote:
> I'm not exactly sure how the Linux kernel would handle this.
>
[...]
>
> Anyway... as for the raid solution, is there anything I should look out
> for BEFORE i start implementing it? Like any particular disk or ext2
> settings that wou
I'm not exactly sure how the Linux kernel would handle this.
Right now, the swap is untouched. If the server needed more ram, wouldn't
it be swapping something... anything? I mean, it currently has 0kb in
swap, and still has free memory.
Here is a recent top:
101 processes: 97 sleeping, 3 runni
On Saturday 09 June 2001 08:23, Jason Lim wrote:
> Well... I'm not sure if you saw the "top" output I sent to the list a
> while back, but the swap isn't touched at all. The 128M ram seems to be
> sufficient at this time. I'm not sure that throwing more memory at it
> would help much, would it? I
On Saturday 09 June 2001 01:11, Rich Puhek wrote:
> Memory memory memory! True, memory is not currently a limiting factor,
> but it likely could be if he were running BIND locally. As for making
> sure that the server is not authoratative for other domains, that will
> help keep other DNS demands
Hi,
Well... I'm not sure if you saw the "top" output I sent to the list a
while back, but the swap isn't touched at all. The 128M ram seems to be
sufficient at this time. I'm not sure that throwing more memory at it
would help much, would it? I think even if more ram is put in, it will
just use at
13 matches
Mail list logo
