I've just been giving a long stress run. It is working here without
trouble though, and I'll send it for the next rc.
-chris
On Fri, Jul 09, 2010 at 02:16:58PM +1000, Chris Samuel wrote:
Chris,
On 22/06/10 04:00, Chris Mason wrote:
I'm still putting this patch through more testing, the
Chris,
On 22/06/10 04:00, Chris Mason wrote:
I'm still putting this patch through more testing, the
double split code is used in some difficult corners and
I need to make sure I've tried all of them.
How did that patch go ?
I've got a few people on our local LUG list who are interested
in
Chris Mason wrote:
[...]
1. the balancing condition n = number_of_keys = 2n+1
is not satisfied (indeed, when number_of_keys is 1
we have 1 = 2n+1 -- false);
That doesn't matter. It is not necessary (or desirable) to follow the
classical B-tree algorithms to the letter to get
On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 10:05:21PM +0200, Edward Shishkin wrote:
Chris Mason wrote:
[...]
1. the balancing condition n = number_of_keys = 2n+1
is not satisfied (indeed, when number_of_keys is 1
we have 1 = 2n+1 -- false);
That doesn't matter. It is not necessary (or desirable) to follow
On Thu, Jun 24, 2010 at 12:37:59AM +0100, Jamie Lokier wrote:
Edward Shishkin wrote:
Chris Mason wrote:
On Tue, Jun 22, 2010 at 04:12:57PM +0200, Edward Shishkin wrote:
Chris Mason wrote:
On Mon, Jun 21, 2010 at 09:15:28AM -0400, Chris Mason wrote:
I'll reproduce
Chris Mason wrote:
On Tue, Jun 22, 2010 at 04:12:57PM +0200, Edward Shishkin wrote:
Chris Mason wrote:
On Mon, Jun 21, 2010 at 09:15:28AM -0400, Chris Mason wrote:
I'll reproduce from your test case and provide a fix. mount -o
max_inline=1500 would give us 50% usage in the
Chris Mason wrote:
On Mon, Jun 21, 2010 at 09:15:28AM -0400, Chris Mason wrote:
I'll reproduce from your test case and provide a fix. mount -o
max_inline=1500 would give us 50% usage in the worst case
This is a very strange statement: how did you calculate this lower bound?
(minus the
On Tue, Jun 22, 2010 at 04:12:57PM +0200, Edward Shishkin wrote:
Chris Mason wrote:
On Mon, Jun 21, 2010 at 09:15:28AM -0400, Chris Mason wrote:
I'll reproduce from your test case and provide a fix. mount -o
max_inline=1500 would give us 50% usage in the worst case
This is a very strange
On Sat, Jun 19, 2010 at 12:04:06AM +0200, Edward Shishkin wrote:
Chris Mason wrote:
On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 09:29:40PM +0200, Edward Shishkin wrote:
Jamie Lokier wrote:
Edward Shishkin wrote:
If you decide to base your file system on some algorithms then please
use the original ones from
On Mon, Jun 21, 2010 at 09:15:28AM -0400, Chris Mason wrote:
I'll reproduce from your test case and provide a fix. mount -o
max_inline=1500 would give us 50% usage in the worst case (minus the
balancing bug you hit).
Ok, the balancing bug was interesting. What happens is we create all
the
Chris Mason wrote:
On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 09:29:40PM +0200, Edward Shishkin wrote:
Jamie Lokier wrote:
Edward Shishkin wrote:
If you decide to base your file system on some algorithms then please
use the original ones from proper academic papers. DO NOT modify the
algorithms
On 06/18/2010 06:04 PM, Edward Shishkin wrote:
Chris Mason wrote:
On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 09:29:40PM +0200, Edward Shishkin wrote:
Jamie Lokier wrote:
Edward Shishkin wrote:
If you decide to base your file system on some algorithms then please
use the original ones from proper academic
Ric Wheeler wrote:
On 06/18/2010 06:04 PM, Edward Shishkin wrote:
Chris Mason wrote:
On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 09:29:40PM +0200, Edward Shishkin wrote:
Jamie Lokier wrote:
Edward Shishkin wrote:
If you decide to base your file system on some algorithms then
please
use the original ones from
13 matches
Mail list logo
