On Tuesday 22 May 2001 17:24, Oliver Xymoron wrote:
> On Mon, 21 May 2001, Daniel Phillips wrote:
> > On Monday 21 May 2001 19:16, Oliver Xymoron wrote:
> > > What I'd like to see:
> > >
> > > - An interface for registering an array of related devices
&
On Tuesday 22 May 2001 12:29, Daniel Phillips wrote:
> The measured create and rename times for Ext2 look pretty silly,
> don't they? OK, I know that my htree directory index patch isn't part
> of Ext2 yet, but at least lets mention that this is a solved problem.
>
> http
On Monday 21 May 2001 14:43, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> How about:
>
> # mkpart /dev/sda /dev/mypartition -o size=1024k,type=swap
> # ls /dev/mypartition
> basesizedevicetype
>
> Generally, we shouldn't care which order the kernel enumerates
> devices in
On Tuesday 22 May 2001 04:41, Ricardo Galli wrote:
> Hi,
> you can find at http://bulma.lug.net/static/ a few new benchmarks
> among Reiser, XFS and Ext2 (also one with JFS).
>
> This time there is a comprehensive Hans' Mongo benchmarks
> (http://bulma.lug.net/static/mongo/ )and a couple of
On Monday 21 May 2001 19:16, Oliver Xymoron wrote:
> What I'd like to see:
>
> - An interface for registering an array of related devices (almost
> always two: raw and ctl) and their legacy device numbers with a
> single userspace callout that does whatever /dev/ creation needs to
> be done.
On Tuesday 22 May 2001 02:59, Keith Owens wrote:
>
> # Not a real dependency, this checks for hand editing of .config.
> $(KBUILD_OBJTREE)include/linux/autoconf.h: $(KBUILD_OBJTREE).config
> @echo Your .config is newer than include/linux/autoconf.h,
> this should not happen. @echo Always
On Monday 21 May 2001 10:14, Lars Marowsky-Bree wrote:
> On 2001-05-19T16:25:47,
>
> Daniel Phillips <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> > How about:
> >
> > # mkpart /dev/sda /dev/mypartition -o size=1024k,type=swap
> > # ls /dev/mypartition
> > ba
On Tuesday 22 May 2001 02:59, Keith Owens wrote:
# Not a real dependency, this checks for hand editing of .config.
$(KBUILD_OBJTREE)include/linux/autoconf.h: $(KBUILD_OBJTREE).config
@echo Your .config is newer than include/linux/autoconf.h,
this should not happen. @echo Always run
On Tuesday 22 May 2001 04:41, Ricardo Galli wrote:
Hi,
you can find at http://bulma.lug.net/static/ a few new benchmarks
among Reiser, XFS and Ext2 (also one with JFS).
This time there is a comprehensive Hans' Mongo benchmarks
(http://bulma.lug.net/static/mongo/ )and a couple of
On Tuesday 22 May 2001 12:29, Daniel Phillips wrote:
The measured create and rename times for Ext2 look pretty silly,
don't they? OK, I know that my htree directory index patch isn't part
of Ext2 yet, but at least lets mention that this is a solved problem.
http://nl.linux.org/~phillips
On Tuesday 22 May 2001 16:42, john slee wrote:
On Mon, May 21, 2001 at 10:00:07PM +0200, Urban Widmark wrote:
On Mon, 21 May 2001, Eric S. Raymond wrote:
the NEW tag). That phase ended almost a month ago. Nobody who
has actually tried the CML2 tools more recently has reported that
On Tuesday 22 May 2001 17:24, Oliver Xymoron wrote:
On Mon, 21 May 2001, Daniel Phillips wrote:
On Monday 21 May 2001 19:16, Oliver Xymoron wrote:
What I'd like to see:
- An interface for registering an array of related devices
(almost always two: raw and ctl) and their legacy
On Tuesday 22 May 2001 19:49, Oliver Xymoron wrote:
On Tue, 22 May 2001, Daniel Phillips wrote:
I don't think it's likely to be even workable. Just consider the
directory entry for a moment - is it going to be marked d or
[cb]?
It's going to be marked 'd', it's a directory
On Monday 21 May 2001 14:43, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
How about:
# mkpart /dev/sda /dev/mypartition -o size=1024k,type=swap
# ls /dev/mypartition
basesizedevicetype
Generally, we shouldn't care which order the kernel enumerates
devices in or which
On Monday 21 May 2001 10:14, Lars Marowsky-Bree wrote:
On 2001-05-19T16:25:47,
Daniel Phillips [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
How about:
# mkpart /dev/sda /dev/mypartition -o size=1024k,type=swap
# ls /dev/mypartition
base sizedevice type
# cat /dev/mypartition/size
On Saturday 19 May 2001 18:33, Rik van Riel wrote:
> On Sat, 19 May 2001, [iso-8859-1] Jakob Østergaard wrote:
> > What do you think of this ?
> > [root]# cat /proc/sys/fs/inode-nr
> > 157097 -180
>
> I think you should upgrade to a newer kernel; Al Viro
> fixed this bug and the fix went
On Saturday 19 May 2001 08:23, Ben LaHaise wrote:
> /dev/sda/offset=1024,limit=2048
> -> open a device that gives a view of sda at an
> offset of 1KB to 2KB
Whatever we end up with, can we express it in terms of base, size,
please?
--
Daniel
-
To
On Saturday 19 May 2001 18:33, Rik van Riel wrote:
On Sat, 19 May 2001, [iso-8859-1] Jakob Østergaard wrote:
What do you think of this ?
[root]# cat /proc/sys/fs/inode-nr
157097 -180
I think you should upgrade to a newer kernel; Al Viro
fixed this bug and the fix went into
On Saturday 19 May 2001 08:23, Ben LaHaise wrote:
/dev/sda/offset=1024,limit=2048
- open a device that gives a view of sda at an
offset of 1KB to 2KB
Whatever we end up with, can we express it in terms of base, size,
please?
--
Daniel
-
To unsubscribe
On Friday 18 May 2001 17:11, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> >(a) Back off the capability approach. That is, accept that
> >people doing configuration are going to explicitly and
> >exhaustively specify low-level hardware.
>
>
>
> > I don't want to do (a); it conflicts with my
On Friday 18 May 2001 17:11, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
(a) Back off the capability approach. That is, accept that
people doing configuration are going to explicitly and
exhaustively specify low-level hardware.
snip
I don't want to do (a); it conflicts with my design
On Friday 18 May 2001 00:06, Dan Kegel wrote:
> Tomas Telensky ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> > does anybody know about any archive/digest service for this mailing
> > list? Majordomo at vger doesn't support this. Or does anybody of
> > you archive all e-mails?
> > [...]
> See
On Friday 18 May 2001 00:06, Dan Kegel wrote:
Tomas Telensky ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
does anybody know about any archive/digest service for this mailing
list? Majordomo at vger doesn't support this. Or does anybody of
you archive all e-mails?
[...]
See
Sorry, I couldn't think of any good flames that haven't already been
posted so I thought I'd be boring and post some code. ;-)
On Monday 14 May 2001 23:50, Daniel Phillips wrote:
> On Monday 14 May 2001 20:33, Andreas Dilger wrote:
> > Daniel, you write:
> > > Now, if the c
On Tuesday 15 May 2001 23:20, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
> Personally, I'd really like to see /dev/ttyS0 be the first detected
> serial port on a system, /dev/ttyS1 the second, etc.
There are well-defined rules for the first four on PC's. The ttySx
better match the labels the OEM put on the box.
--
On Tuesday 15 May 2001 22:51, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Tue, 15 May 2001, Alexander Viro wrote:
> > If you want them all to inherit it - inherit from mountpoint.
>
> ..which is exactly what the device node ends up being. The implicit
> mount-point.
>
> And which point, btw, it is completely
On Tuesday 15 May 2001 17:34, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Tue, 15 May 2001, Neil Brown wrote:
> > Ofcourse setting the "queue" function that __blk_get_queue call to
> > do a lookup of the minor and choose an appropriate queue for the
> > "real" device wont work as you need to munge bh->b_rdev too.
On Tuesday 15 May 2001 12:44, Alexander Viro wrote:
> On Tue, 15 May 2001, Daniel Phillips wrote:
> > That's because you left out his invalidate:
> >
> > * create an instance in pagecache
> > * start reading into buffer cache (doesn't invalidate, right?)
&g
On Tuesday 15 May 2001 08:57, Alexander Viro wrote:
> On Tue, 15 May 2001, Richard Gooch wrote:
> > > What happens if you create a buffer cache entry? Does that
> > > invalidate the page cache one? Or do you just allow invalidates
> > > one way, and not the other? And why=
> >
> > I just figured
On Tuesday 15 May 2001 08:57, Alexander Viro wrote:
On Tue, 15 May 2001, Richard Gooch wrote:
What happens if you create a buffer cache entry? Does that
invalidate the page cache one? Or do you just allow invalidates
one way, and not the other? And why=
I just figured on one way
On Tuesday 15 May 2001 12:44, Alexander Viro wrote:
On Tue, 15 May 2001, Daniel Phillips wrote:
That's because you left out his invalidate:
* create an instance in pagecache
* start reading into buffer cache (doesn't invalidate, right?)
* start writing using pagecache
On Tuesday 15 May 2001 23:20, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
Personally, I'd really like to see /dev/ttyS0 be the first detected
serial port on a system, /dev/ttyS1 the second, etc.
There are well-defined rules for the first four on PC's. The ttySx
better match the labels the OEM put on the box.
--
On Tuesday 15 May 2001 22:51, Linus Torvalds wrote:
On Tue, 15 May 2001, Alexander Viro wrote:
If you want them all to inherit it - inherit from mountpoint.
..which is exactly what the device node ends up being. The implicit
mount-point.
And which point, btw, it is completely
On Tuesday 15 May 2001 17:34, Linus Torvalds wrote:
On Tue, 15 May 2001, Neil Brown wrote:
Ofcourse setting the queue function that __blk_get_queue call to
do a lookup of the minor and choose an appropriate queue for the
real device wont work as you need to munge bh-b_rdev too.
What I
Sorry, I couldn't think of any good flames that haven't already been
posted so I thought I'd be boring and post some code. ;-)
On Monday 14 May 2001 23:50, Daniel Phillips wrote:
On Monday 14 May 2001 20:33, Andreas Dilger wrote:
Daniel, you write:
Now, if the check routine tells us how
On Tuesday 15 May 2001 01:19, Richard Gooch wrote:
> Linus Torvalds writes:
> > On Sun, 13 May 2001, Richard Gooch wrote:
> > > So, why can't the page cache check if a block is in the buffer
> > > cache?
> >
> > Because it would make the damn thing slower.
> >
> > The whole point of the page
On Monday 14 May 2001 22:04, Andreas Dilger wrote:
> Daniel writes:
> > I was originally thinking we should give the admin the ability to
> > create a nonindexed directory if desired, and that's how it used to
> > be before we changed the setting of INDEX_FL from directory
> > creation time to
On Monday 14 May 2001 22:04, Andreas Dilger wrote:
> Maybe we can have a "noindex" mount option for this?
We need that regardless, I just keep forgetting to put it in. I assume
the semantics are obvious: no new indexes are created but existing ones
are maintained. I.e., -o noindex does not
On Monday 14 May 2001 20:33, Andreas Dilger wrote:
> Daniel, you write:
> > Now, if the check routine tells us how much good data it found we
> > could use that to set a limit for the dirent scan, thus keeping the
> > same robustness as the old code but without having all the checks
> > in the
On Monday 14 May 2001 20:33, Andreas Dilger wrote:
> Danie, you write:
> > This can go in ext2_bread, which already has dir-specific code in
> > it (readahead), and ext2_getblk remains generic, for what it's
> > worth.
>
> Note that the dir-specific code in ext2_bread() is not readahead, but
>
On Monday 14 May 2001 06:00, Rik van Riel wrote:
> + if (!PageActive(page))
> + activate_page(page);
> + else
> + SetPageReferenced(page);
> +
How about:
> + if (PageActive(page))
> + SetPageReferenced(page);
> + else
> +
On Monday 14 May 2001 07:29, Blesson Paul wrote:
> Hi
>I am trying to implement a distributed file system.
> For that I write a file driver. I want to know the following things
>
> 1 . If I am writing a new file system, is it necessary to modify the
> existing structs including
On Monday 14 May 2001 07:15, Richard Gooch wrote:
> Linus Torvalds writes:
> > But sure, you can use bmap if you want. It would be interesting to
> > hear whether it makes much of a difference..
>
> I doubt bmap() would make any difference if there is a way of
> controlling when the I/O starts.
>
On Monday 14 May 2001 07:15, Richard Gooch wrote:
Linus Torvalds writes:
But sure, you can use bmap if you want. It would be interesting to
hear whether it makes much of a difference..
I doubt bmap() would make any difference if there is a way of
controlling when the I/O starts.
On Monday 14 May 2001 06:00, Rik van Riel wrote:
+ if (!PageActive(page))
+ activate_page(page);
+ else
+ SetPageReferenced(page);
+
How about:
+ if (PageActive(page))
+ SetPageReferenced(page);
+ else
+
On Monday 14 May 2001 07:29, Blesson Paul wrote:
Hi
I am trying to implement a distributed file system.
For that I write a file driver. I want to know the following things
1 . If I am writing a new file system, is it necessary to modify the
existing structs including inode
On Monday 14 May 2001 20:33, Andreas Dilger wrote:
Danie, you write:
This can go in ext2_bread, which already has dir-specific code in
it (readahead), and ext2_getblk remains generic, for what it's
worth.
Note that the dir-specific code in ext2_bread() is not readahead, but
rather
On Monday 14 May 2001 20:33, Andreas Dilger wrote:
Daniel, you write:
Now, if the check routine tells us how much good data it found we
could use that to set a limit for the dirent scan, thus keeping the
same robustness as the old code but without having all the checks
in the inner loop.
On Monday 14 May 2001 22:04, Andreas Dilger wrote:
Maybe we can have a noindex mount option for this?
We need that regardless, I just keep forgetting to put it in. I assume
the semantics are obvious: no new indexes are created but existing ones
are maintained. I.e., -o noindex does not mean
On Monday 14 May 2001 22:04, Andreas Dilger wrote:
Daniel writes:
I was originally thinking we should give the admin the ability to
create a nonindexed directory if desired, and that's how it used to
be before we changed the setting of INDEX_FL from directory
creation time to later, when
On Tuesday 15 May 2001 01:19, Richard Gooch wrote:
Linus Torvalds writes:
On Sun, 13 May 2001, Richard Gooch wrote:
So, why can't the page cache check if a block is in the buffer
cache?
Because it would make the damn thing slower.
The whole point of the page cache is to be FAST
On Thursday 10 May 2001 09:21, Andreas Dilger wrote:
> I previously wrote:
> > I was looking at the new patch, and I saw something that puzzles
> > me. Why do you set the EXT2_INDEX_FL on a new (empty) directory,
> > rather than only setting it when the dx_root index is created?
> >
> > Setting
On Thursday 10 May 2001 09:21, Andreas Dilger wrote:
I previously wrote:
I was looking at the new patch, and I saw something that puzzles
me. Why do you set the EXT2_INDEX_FL on a new (empty) directory,
rather than only setting it when the dx_root index is created?
Setting the flag
On Sunday 13 May 2001 00:18, Alexander Viro wrote:
> On Sat, 12 May 2001, Andreas Dilger wrote:
> > We could use the "buffer_uptodate" flag on the buffer to signal
> > that the block has been checked. AFAIK, a new buffer will not be
> > uptodate, and once it is it will not be read from disk
On Saturday 12 May 2001 23:41, Andreas Dilger wrote:
> Daniel writes:
> > Oh yes, I'm well aware it, that's what I mean by the "bullet
> > proofing" item on my to-do list. I don't quite agree with the idea
> > of embedding the checking of directory entry format inside the
> > ext2_get_page
On Sunday 13 May 2001 00:18, Alexander Viro wrote:
On Sat, 12 May 2001, Andreas Dilger wrote:
We could use the buffer_uptodate flag on the buffer to signal
that the block has been checked. AFAIK, a new buffer will not be
uptodate, and once it is it will not be read from disk again...
On Saturday 12 May 2001 23:41, Andreas Dilger wrote:
Daniel writes:
Oh yes, I'm well aware it, that's what I mean by the bullet
proofing item on my to-do list. I don't quite agree with the idea
of embedding the checking of directory entry format inside the
ext2_get_page routine, it
On Friday 11 May 2001 18:34, Andreas Dilger wrote:
> Al writes:
> > On Fri, 11 May 2001, Andreas Dilger wrote:
> > > I've tested again, now with kdb, and the system loops in
> > > ext2_find_entry() or ext2_add_link(), because there is a
> > > directory with a zero rec_len. While the actual cause
On Monday 07 May 2001 20:42, Pavel Machek wrote:
> > > It's not exactly "kernel-based fsck". What I've been talking
> > > about is secondary filesystem providing coherent access to
> > > primary fs metadata. I.e. mount -t ext2meta -o master=/usr none
> > > /mnt and then access through
On Friday 11 May 2001 09:10, Andreas Dilger wrote:
> and previously wrote:
> > OK, here are the patches described above.
> >
> > Unfortunately, they haven't been tested. I've given them several
> > eyeballings and they appear OK, but when I try to run the ext2
> > index code (even without "-o
On Friday 11 May 2001 09:10, Andreas Dilger wrote:
and previously wrote:
OK, here are the patches described above.
Unfortunately, they haven't been tested. I've given them several
eyeballings and they appear OK, but when I try to run the ext2
index code (even without -o index mount
On Monday 07 May 2001 20:42, Pavel Machek wrote:
It's not exactly kernel-based fsck. What I've been talking
about is secondary filesystem providing coherent access to
primary fs metadata. I.e. mount -t ext2meta -o master=/usr none
/mnt and then access through /mnt/super,
On Friday 11 May 2001 18:34, Andreas Dilger wrote:
Al writes:
On Fri, 11 May 2001, Andreas Dilger wrote:
I've tested again, now with kdb, and the system loops in
ext2_find_entry() or ext2_add_link(), because there is a
directory with a zero rec_len. While the actual cause of this
On Thursday 10 May 2001 22:53, Andreas Dilger wrote:
> OK, here are the patches described above.
>
> The first one changes the use of the various INDEX flags, so that
> they only appear when we have mounted with "-o index" (or
> COMPAT_DIR_INDEX) and actually created an indexed directory.
>
> The
On Wednesday 09 May 2001 23:22, you wrote:
> Daniel writes [re index directories]:
> > This is lightly tested and apparently stable.
>
> I was looking at the new patch, and I saw something that puzzles me.
> Why do you set the EXT2_INDEX_FL on a new (empty) directory, rather
> than only setting
On Thursday 10 May 2001 12:19, Pekka Pietikainen wrote:
> Here's some very unscientific numbers I've measured (ancient 4G SCSI
> drive on a dual pII/450), XFS 1.0-pre2 and reiserfs is
> the version in that kernel. The first bit is from tiobench, the
> multiple files one is a simple 30-line
On Wednesday 09 May 2001 23:22, you wrote:
Daniel writes [re index directories]:
This is lightly tested and apparently stable.
I was looking at the new patch, and I saw something that puzzles me.
Why do you set the EXT2_INDEX_FL on a new (empty) directory, rather
than only setting it when
On Thursday 10 May 2001 22:53, Andreas Dilger wrote:
OK, here are the patches described above.
The first one changes the use of the various INDEX flags, so that
they only appear when we have mounted with -o index (or
COMPAT_DIR_INDEX) and actually created an indexed directory.
The second
On Thursday 10 May 2001 12:19, Pekka Pietikainen wrote:
Here's some very unscientific numbers I've measured (ancient 4G SCSI
drive on a dual pII/450), XFS 1.0-pre2 and reiserfs is
the version in that kernel. The first bit is from tiobench, the
multiple files one is a simple 30-line program
uid. One disk will go inside (I think?) and the
> > other 4 on a tower conected to the RAID, which will be have the
> > cache of the squid server.
[...]
> also appropriate could be ext2 with daniel phillips' directory
> indexing patches.
The ext2 indexing patch is apparently
(I think?) and the
other 4 on a tower conected to the RAID, which will be have the
cache of the squid server.
[...]
also appropriate could be ext2 with daniel phillips' directory
indexing patches.
The ext2 indexing patch is apparently stable but it's still pre-alpha
until the hash function
On Monday 07 May 2001 08:26, Tobias Ringstrom wrote:
> On Sun, 6 May 2001, David S. Miller wrote:
> > It is the most straightforward way to make a '1' or '0'
> > integer from the NULL state of a pointer.
>
> But is it really specified in the C "standards" to be exctly zero or
> one, and not zero
On Monday 07 May 2001 08:26, Tobias Ringstrom wrote:
On Sun, 6 May 2001, David S. Miller wrote:
It is the most straightforward way to make a '1' or '0'
integer from the NULL state of a pointer.
But is it really specified in the C standards to be exctly zero or
one, and not zero and
This patch updates ext2_getblk and ext2_bread to use the ERR_PTR style
of error return. As Al Viro pointed out, this is a better way of doing
things for a function returning a pointer. This approach would have
prevented the bug I fixed with the previous patch. 20 20 hindsight,
and I can
This patch updates ext2_getblk and ext2_bread to use the ERR_PTR style
of error return. As Al Viro pointed out, this is a better way of doing
things for a function returning a pointer. This approach would have
prevented the bug I fixed with the previous patch. 20 20 hindsight,
and I can
> This combination against 2.4.4 won't allow directories to be moved.
> Ex: mv a b #fails with I/O error. See attached strace.
> But with ext2-dir-patch-S4 by itself, mv works as it should.
Now it also works with my index patch as it should:
This combination against 2.4.4 won't allow directories to be moved.
Ex: mv a b #fails with I/O error. See attached strace.
But with ext2-dir-patch-S4 by itself, mv works as it should.
Now it also works with my index patch as it should:
On Thursday 03 May 2001 03:15, you wrote:
> Hello Daniel,
> This combination against 2.4.4 won't allow directories to be moved.
> Ex: mv a b #fails with I/O error. See attached strace.
> But with ext2-dir-patch-S4 by itself, mv works as it should.
> Later,
> Albert
Thanks Albert, this was
On Thursday 03 May 2001 03:15, you wrote:
Hello Daniel,
This combination against 2.4.4 won't allow directories to be moved.
Ex: mv a b #fails with I/O error. See attached strace.
But with ext2-dir-patch-S4 by itself, mv works as it should.
Later,
Albert
Thanks Albert, this was easily
> Patch is on ftp.math.psu.edu/pub/viro/ext2-dir-patch-S4.gz
Here is my ext2 directory index as a patch against your patch:
http://kernelnewbies.org/~phillips/htree/dx.pcache-2.4.4
Changes:
- COMBSORT macro replaced by custom sort code
- Most #ifdef CONFIG_EXT2_INDEX's changed
Patch is on ftp.math.psu.edu/pub/viro/ext2-dir-patch-S4.gz
Here is my ext2 directory index as a patch against your patch:
http://kernelnewbies.org/~phillips/htree/dx.pcache-2.4.4
Changes:
- COMBSORT macro replaced by custom sort code
- Most #ifdef CONFIG_EXT2_INDEX's changed
I am now maitaining two versions of the directory indexing patch, one
for the "old-style" ext2 directory code and another based on Al Viro's
directory-in-page-cache patch, which hasn't made it into the main tree
yet. The current patches are:
I am now maitaining two versions of the directory indexing patch, one
for the old-style ext2 directory code and another based on Al Viro's
directory-in-page-cache patch, which hasn't made it into the main tree
yet. The current patches are:
On Thursday 08 March 2001 13:42, Goswin Brederlow wrote:
> > " " == Pavel Machek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Hi!
> >
> >> I was hoping to point out that in real life, most systems that
> >> need to access large numbers of files are already designed to
> >> do some
*Now* the patch is available at
http://kernelnewbies.org/~phillips/htree/dx.testme-2.4.3-3
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the
*Now* the patch is available at
http://kernelnewbies.org/~phillips/htree/dx.testme-2.4.3-3
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ
On Thursday 08 March 2001 13:42, Goswin Brederlow wrote:
== Pavel Machek [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Hi!
I was hoping to point out that in real life, most systems that
need to access large numbers of files are already designed to
do some kind of hashing, or at
This is my second attempt at converting my ext2 indexing code to use the
page cache instead of the buffer cache. The first attempt was a fairly
miserable failure for reasons I mentioned in an earlier post, and which
can be summed up as: the interface I tried to use didn't suit the
problem. Or
This is my second attempt at converting my ext2 indexing code to use the
page cache instead of the buffer cache. The first attempt was a fairly
miserable failure for reasons I mentioned in an earlier post, and which
can be summed up as: the interface I tried to use didn't suit the
problem. Or
On Fri, 20 Apr 2001, Andreas Dilger wrote:
> The included patch updates Documentation/filesystems/ext2 to reflect
> current information about ext2. It also adds some more information
> that people have told me is hard to find in other places (such as a
> description of the superblock
On Fri, 20 Apr 2001, Andreas Dilger wrote:
The included patch updates Documentation/filesystems/ext2 to reflect
current information about ext2. It also adds some more information
that people have told me is hard to find in other places (such as a
description of the superblock compatibility
> On Wed, 18 Apr 2001, Rik van Riel wrote:
> > One thing we should do is make sure the buffer cache code sets
> > the referenced bit on pages, so we don't recycle buffer cache
> > pages early.
> >
> > This should leave more space for the buffercache and lead to us
> > reclaiming the (now unused)
Rik van Riel wrote:
> On Thu, 19 Apr 2001, Daniel Phillips wrote:
>
> > OK, now I know what's happening, the next question is, what should be
> > dones about it. If anything.
>
> [ discovered by alexey on #kernelnewbies ]
>
> One thing we should do is make s
Rik van Riel wrote:
> On Thu, 19 Apr 2001, Daniel Phillips wrote:
> > Jan Harkes wrote:
> > > On Thu, Apr 19, 2001 at 02:27:48AM +0200, Daniel Phillips wrote:
> > > > more memory. If you have enough memory, the inode cache won't thrash,
> > > > an
Rik van Riel wrote:
On Thu, 19 Apr 2001, Daniel Phillips wrote:
Jan Harkes wrote:
On Thu, Apr 19, 2001 at 02:27:48AM +0200, Daniel Phillips wrote:
more memory. If you have enough memory, the inode cache won't thrash,
and even when it does, it does so gracefully - performance falls
Rik van Riel wrote:
On Thu, 19 Apr 2001, Daniel Phillips wrote:
OK, now I know what's happening, the next question is, what should be
dones about it. If anything.
[ discovered by alexey on #kernelnewbies ]
One thing we should do is make sure the buffer cache code sets
On Wed, 18 Apr 2001, Rik van Riel wrote:
One thing we should do is make sure the buffer cache code sets
the referenced bit on pages, so we don't recycle buffer cache
pages early.
This should leave more space for the buffercache and lead to us
reclaiming the (now unused) space in the
Jan Harkes wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 19, 2001 at 02:27:48AM +0200, Daniel Phillips wrote:
> > more memory. If you have enough memory, the inode cache won't thrash,
> > and even when it does, it does so gracefully - performance falls off
> > nice and slowly. For example, 2
Al Viro wrote:
> Folks, IMO ext2-dir-patch got to the stable stage. Currently
> it's against 2.4.4-pre2, but it should apply to anything starting with
> 2.4.2 or so.
>
> Ted, could you review it for potential inclusion into 2.4 once
> it gets enough testing? It's ext2-only (the only change
A few weeks ago, testing my indexed directory code with a 1,000,000 file
directory, I noticed that deletion was taking longer than creation -
about 4 times longer. Andreas Dilger confirmed this earlier this week,
and I decided I'd better find out what's going on.
Not having any nice tracing
901 - 1000 of 1437 matches
Mail list logo
