On Tue, 18 Dec 2001, Mike Bristow wrote:
>I suspect that the background fsck[1] that's available in FreeBSD-current
>fits the bill just as well as JFS or XFS - and I'll also bet that it'll
>be available in a FreeBSD-release before I'd trust data to a port of
>JFS or XFS.
This is a killer feature
:...
:>with out-of-order operations from nfsiod's that apparently may come
:>up after a week or so of testing. I asked Jordan to try to track down
:>the NeXT guy who fixed that one in the old NFS stack.
:
:This bug showed up recently here with fsx testing. I seem to have fixed it
:la
At 12:24 PM -0800 12/16/01, Matthew Dillon wrote:
>program runs fine in an overnight test. We still have a known issue
>with out-of-order operations from nfsiod's that apparently may come
>up after a week or so of testing. I asked Jordan to try to track down
>the NeXT guy who fi
:Two things I've done to speed it up are to restrict the size of transfers
:(use the -o flag) and eliminate all the size checks (use the -n flag).
:
:Why would MFS be much faster than UFS? On the server doesn't the whole
:file end up cached? ...and the metadata changes likewise via softupdates.
At 5:22 PM -0800 12/15/01, Matthew Dillon wrote:
>Ho! Will do. I'm going to try to speed things up a bit by
>having the NFS server export an MFS filesystem.
>
> -Matt
Two things I've done to speed it up are to restrict the size of transfers
(use th
:Once it runs aok for a few million operations, try concurrently running:
:
:#! /bin/sh
:while :
:do
: sync
: sleep 1
:done
:
:In OS X I used that to flush :) out a couple more bugs.
:
:--
:Conrad Minshall, [EMAIL PROTECTED], 408 974-2749
:Apple Computer, Mac OS X Core Operating Systems
Ho
At 10:08 PM -0800 12/12/01, Matthew Dillon wrote:
>Ok, here is the latest patch for -stable. Note that Kirk comitted a
>slightly modified version of the softupdates fix to -current already
>(the VOP_FSYNC stuff), which I will be MFCing in 3 days.
>
>This still doesn't fix all the
On Wed, 12 Dec 2001, Matthew Dillon wrote:
>All I can say is... holy shit!
Dude, you kick ass. At work I've been dealing with Linux's crappy NFS
implementation for years, while FreeBSD has always been pretty damn good
by comparison. Linux finally got a decent amount of performance under
2.
:Does the softupdates fix affect normal ffs operations as well?
:
:Mike "Silby" Silbersack
Yes, we believe so. It's a bug in ftruncate()'s interaction
with softupdates.
-Matt
Matthew Dillon
On Wed, 12 Dec 2001, Matthew Dillon wrote:
>
> :
> :Are any of these client-side performance upgrades as well as bug fixes?
>
> No, just bug fixes. The softupdates bug fix is server-side. All
> the other bug fixes are client side (so far).
>
>
:
:Are any of these client-side performance upgrades as well as bug fixes?
No, just bug fixes. The softupdates bug fix is server-side. All
the other bug fixes are client side (so far).
-Matt
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED
Are any of these client-side performance upgrades as well as bug fixes?
On Wed, 12 Dec 2001, Matthew Dillon wrote:
> Ok, here is the latest patch for -stable. Note that Kirk comitted a
> slightly modified version of the softupdates fix to -current already
> (the VOP_FSYNC stuff), wh
12 matches
Mail list logo
