Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Ben LaHaise wrote:
> On Thu, 1 Mar 2001, Stephen C. Tweedie wrote:
>
> > Yep. There shouldn't be any problem increasing the 64KB size, it's
> > only the lack of accounting for the pinned memory which stopped me
> >
Hi,
On Thu, Mar 01, 2001 at 11:08:13AM -0500, Ben LaHaise wrote:
> On Thu, 1 Mar 2001, Stephen C. Tweedie wrote:
>
> Actually, how about making it a sysctl? That's probably the most
> reasonable approach for now since the optimal size depends on hardware.
Fine with me.
--Stephen
-
To
On Thu, 1 Mar 2001, Stephen C. Tweedie wrote:
> Yep. There shouldn't be any problem increasing the 64KB size, it's
> only the lack of accounting for the pinned memory which stopped me
> increasing it by default.
Actually, how about making it a sysctl? That's probably the most
reasonable
Hi,
On Thu, Mar 01, 2001 at 10:44:38AM -0500, Ben LaHaise wrote:
>
> On Thu, 1 Mar 2001, Stephen C. Tweedie wrote:
>
> > Raw IO is always synchronous: it gets flushed to disk before the write
> > returns. You don't get any write-behind with raw IO, so the smaller
> > the blocksize you write
Hello all,
On Thu, 1 Mar 2001, Stephen C. Tweedie wrote:
> Raw IO is always synchronous: it gets flushed to disk before the write
> returns. You don't get any write-behind with raw IO, so the smaller
> the blocksize you write in, the slower things get.
More importantly, the mainstream raw io
Hello all,
On Thu, 1 Mar 2001, Stephen C. Tweedie wrote:
Raw IO is always synchronous: it gets flushed to disk before the write
returns. You don't get any write-behind with raw IO, so the smaller
the blocksize you write in, the slower things get.
More importantly, the mainstream raw io
Hi,
On Thu, Mar 01, 2001 at 10:44:38AM -0500, Ben LaHaise wrote:
On Thu, 1 Mar 2001, Stephen C. Tweedie wrote:
Raw IO is always synchronous: it gets flushed to disk before the write
returns. You don't get any write-behind with raw IO, so the smaller
the blocksize you write in, the
On Thu, 1 Mar 2001, Stephen C. Tweedie wrote:
Yep. There shouldn't be any problem increasing the 64KB size, it's
only the lack of accounting for the pinned memory which stopped me
increasing it by default.
Actually, how about making it a sysctl? That's probably the most
reasonable approach
Hi,
On Thu, Mar 01, 2001 at 11:08:13AM -0500, Ben LaHaise wrote:
On Thu, 1 Mar 2001, Stephen C. Tweedie wrote:
Actually, how about making it a sysctl? That's probably the most
reasonable approach for now since the optimal size depends on hardware.
Fine with me.
--Stephen
-
To unsubscribe
Hello,
Writing to an software RAID 0 containing 4 SCSI discs is very fast.
I get transfer rates of about 100 MBytes/s. The filesystem on the RAID
is ext2.
Writing to the same RAID directly (that means on the raw device without
a filesystem) works
but gives low transfer rates of about 31
Hello,
Writing to an software RAID 0 containing 4 SCSI discs is very fast.
I get transfer rates of about 100 MBytes/s. The filesystem on the RAID
is ext2.
Writing to the same RAID directly (that means on the raw device without
a filesystem) works
but gives low transfer rates of about 31
11 matches
Mail list logo
