Hi,
On Fri, Jul 20, 2007 at 06:17:43PM +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
On Fri, 20 Jul 2007, Frank Burkhardt wrote:
Hi,
I did some benchmarks to find out, which filesystem is best:
http://fbo.no-ip.org/cgi-bin/twiki/view/Instantafs/WhichFs
thanks for sharing this. Are you
On Fri, Jul 20, 2007 at 05:19:37PM +0200, Frank Burkhardt wrote:
http://fbo.no-ip.org/cgi-bin/twiki/view/Instantafs/WhichFs
Your document says:
Keep in mind that ext3 sometimes thinks , it's necessary to fsck
(e.g. after 1 year or 26x mounting).
This is tunable with tune2fs and I think
Hi,
I did some benchmarks to find out, which filesystem is best:
http://fbo.no-ip.org/cgi-bin/twiki/view/Instantafs/WhichFs
Now my boss want's me to use ext3, I would prefer reiser3 - difficult
decision :-) .
Regards,
Frank
___
OpenAFS-info mailing
Thanks for this, Frank.
Kim Kimball
Frank Burkhardt wrote:
Hi,
I did some benchmarks to find out, which filesystem is best:
http://fbo.no-ip.org/cgi-bin/twiki/view/Instantafs/WhichFs
Now my boss want's me to use ext3, I would prefer reiser3 - difficult
decision :-) .
Regards,
Frank
On Fri, 20 Jul 2007, Frank Burkhardt wrote:
Hi,
I did some benchmarks to find out, which filesystem is best:
http://fbo.no-ip.org/cgi-bin/twiki/view/Instantafs/WhichFs
Now my boss want's me to use ext3, I would prefer reiser3 - difficult
decision :-) .
What version of OpenAFS did you test
Hi,
On Fri, 20 Jul 2007, Frank Burkhardt wrote:
Hi,
I did some benchmarks to find out, which filesystem is best:
http://fbo.no-ip.org/cgi-bin/twiki/view/Instantafs/WhichFs
thanks for sharing this. Are you reading linux-ide-arrays? There was a
thread this week where someone pointed out
On Fri, 20 Jul 2007, Frank Burkhardt wrote:
Sorry. It's 1.4.4 - I just updated the page.
Cool. I imagine your XFS performance would improve greatly with the no
fsync patch that's been discussed on here.
And a few comments on reiser. If you ever need to do a fsck on it (which we
have
On Jul 20, 2007, at 2:18 PM, Michael C Garrison wrote:
On Fri, 20 Jul 2007, Frank Burkhardt wrote:
Sorry. It's 1.4.4 - I just updated the page.
Cool. I imagine your XFS performance would improve greatly with the
no fsync patch that's been discussed on here.
And a few comments on
On 6/18/07, Frank Burkhardt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
I'm currently removing a backup clone which belongs to a volume containing
~
55 GB in ~ 102000 files. 'vos status' shows a DeleteVolume transaction
which is running since 63 min now.
Is it supposed to take that long? I've seen this on
On 6/25/07, Steven Jenkins [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 6/18/07, Frank Burkhardt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
I'm currently removing a backup clone which belongs to a volume
containing ~
55 GB in ~ 102000 files. 'vos status' shows a DeleteVolume transaction
which is running since 63 min
On 6/25/07, Derrick Brashear [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 6/25/07, Steven Jenkins [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:...
The root problem here is the underlying filesystem presumably offers poor
performance for deleting files, and the way to fix it is to use a filesystem
that doesn't. Deleting a volume
Hi,
On Mon, Jun 25, 2007 at 04:46:29PM -0400, Steven Jenkins wrote:
On 6/25/07, Derrick Brashear [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 6/25/07, Steven Jenkins [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:...
The root problem here is the underlying filesystem presumably offers poor
performance for deleting files,
Hi,
I'm currently removing a backup clone which belongs to a volume containing ~
55 GB in ~ 102000 files. 'vos status' shows a DeleteVolume transaction
which is running since 63 min now.
Is it supposed to take that long? I've seen this on all of our file servers
- especially when performing
13 matches
Mail list logo
