Hello!
On Mon, Jan 28, 2002 at 02:47:17PM +0100, Zeljko Brajdic wrote:
Ok, thank you for the report, we hope we'll be able to reproduce this error
locally.
Should stay with 2.4.17 or reboot in 2.2.16 (i didn't convert to
3.6:))?!
2.4.17 have more bugfixes in than 2.4.17 so I think 2.4.17
On Mon, 2002-01-28 at 14:50, Oleg Drokin wrote:
Hello!
On Mon, Jan 28, 2002 at 02:47:17PM +0100, Zeljko Brajdic wrote:
Ok, thank you for the report, we hope we'll be able to reproduce this error
locally.
Should stay with 2.4.17 or reboot in 2.2.16 (i didn't convert to
3.6:))?!
On Monday, January 28, 2002 02:15:28 AM -1000 Sebastian J. Bronner
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Monday 28 January 2002 02:06, Oleg Drokin wrote:
reiserfs --rebuild-tree won't convert them to 3.6 either.
Ah, and you do not want to use 2.4.16 with reiserfs on root partition,
if that is v3.6
Hi!
On Mon, 28 Jan 2002, Hans Reiser wrote:
Oleg Drokin wrote:
Hello!
On Mon, Jan 28, 2002 at 01:31:11PM +0100, Gergely Tamas wrote:
You have HDD problems. Such problems/related questions are answered
based on http://www.namesys.com/support.html terms.
Does
Hi,
the reiserfsprogs link on the namesys download page seems to be wrong.
It points to:
ftp://ftp.namesys.com/pub/reiserfsprogs/reiserfsprogs-3.x.1.tar.gz
where it should point to:
ftp://ftp.namesys.com/pub/reiserfsprogs/reiserfsprogs-3.x.1a.tar.gz
Martin
--
Martin Knoblauch wrote:
Hi,
the reiserfsprogs link on the namesys download page seems to be wrong.
It points to:
ftp://ftp.namesys.com/pub/reiserfsprogs/reiserfsprogs-3.x.1.tar.gz
where it should point to:
ftp://ftp.namesys.com/pub/reiserfsprogs/reiserfsprogs-3.x.1a.tar.gz
Hello!
On Mon, Jan 28, 2002 at 04:19:57PM +0100, Martin Knoblauch wrote:
the reiserfsprogs link on the namesys download page seems to be wrong.
It points to:
ftp://ftp.namesys.com/pub/reiserfsprogs/reiserfsprogs-3.x.1.tar.gz
where it should point to:
Martin Knoblauch wrote:
Martin Knoblauch wrote:
Hi,
the reiserfsprogs link on the namesys download page seems to be wrong.
It points to:
ftp://ftp.namesys.com/pub/reiserfsprogs/reiserfsprogs-3.x.1.tar.gz
where it should point to:
When memory pressure becomes high, the Linux kswapd begins calling
shrink_caches() from try_to_free_pages() with an integer priority from
6 (the default, lowest priority) to 1 (high priority). Looking
specifically at the dcache, this results in a calls to
shrink_dcache_memory() that attempt to
On Mon, 28 Jan 2002, Josh MacDonald wrote:
So, it would seem that the dcache and kmem_slab_cache memory allocator
could benefit from a way to shrink the dcache in a less random way.
Any thoughts?
The way I want to solve this problem generically is to basically get rid
of the special-purpose
On Mon, 28 Jan 2002, Linus Torvalds wrote:
I am, for example, very interested to see if Rik can get the overhead of
the rmap stuff down low enough that it's not a noticeable hit under
non-VM-pressure. I'm looking at the issue of doing COW on the page tables
(which really is a separate
On Monday 28 January 2002 04:37, Chris Mason wrote:
On Monday, January 28, 2002 02:15:28 AM -1000 Sebastian J. Bronner
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Monday 28 January 2002 02:06, Oleg Drokin wrote:
reiserfs --rebuild-tree won't convert them to 3.6 either.
Ah, and you do not want to use
On Monday, January 28, 2002 08:19:59 AM -1000 Sebastian J. Bronner
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What was the original problem with the 2.4 kernel series and 3.6-format
reiserfs partitions that Oleg warned me against, and has been fixed in
this kernel?
If 3.5.x filesystems that had been
Hubert Mantel [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Installation time is after boot time. Use a Unix-style file system. Go
for minix, that's small and will not get in the way.
So the modules floppy would need to be minix also. We had that in the
past.
No need, you can load fat.o + vfat.o from initrd
On Monday 28 January 2002 08:49, Chris Mason wrote:
If 3.5.x filesystems that had been converted into 3.6.x filesystems were
mounted readonly, and then mounted -o remount,rw, the kernel incorrectly
used the old format, causing FS corruption. Most people saw this on root
filesystems they had
On Mon, 28 Jan 2002, Rik van Riel wrote:
I'd be interested to know exactly how much overhead -rmap is
causing for both page faults and fork (but I'm sure one of
the regular benchmarkers can figure that one out while I fix
the RSS limit stuff ;))
I doubt it is noticeable on page faults
On Mon, 28 Jan 2002, Linus Torvalds wrote:
On Mon, 28 Jan 2002, Rik van Riel wrote:
I'd be interested to know exactly how much overhead -rmap is
causing for both page faults and fork (but I'm sure one of
the regular benchmarkers can figure that one out while I fix
the RSS limit stuff
If I understand you right, your scheme has the fundamental flaw that one
dcache entry on a page can keep an entire page full of slackers in
memory, and since there is little correlation in usage between dcache
entries that happen to get stored on a page, the result is that the
effectiveness
On Mon, 28 Jan 2002, Linus Torvalds wrote:
(Also, I'd like to understand why some people report so much better
times on dbench, and some people reports so much _worse_ times with
dbench. Admittedly dbench is a horrible benchmark, but still.. Is it
just the elevator breakage, or is it rmap
On January 28, 2002 07:21 pm, Linus Torvalds wrote:
On Mon, 28 Jan 2002, Rik van Riel wrote:
I'd be interested to know exactly how much overhead -rmap is
causing for both page faults and fork (but I'm sure one of
the regular benchmarkers can figure that one out while I fix
the RSS
On Mon, Jan 28, 2002 at 10:51:22AM +0300, Oleg Drokin wrote:
Hello!
Hans insists that user errors are handled based on
http://www.namesys.com/support.html terms.
Is --scan-whole-partition deprecated, unmaintained, beta or is there
some other reason for it not to be documented in the
Daniel == Daniel Phillips [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Daniel I'd cheerfully hand this coding effort off to someone more familiar with this
Daniel particular neck of the kernel woods - you, Davem and Marcelo come to mind,
Daniel but if nobody bites I'll just continue working on it at my own
On January 28, 2002 11:01 pm, Momchil Velikov wrote:
Daniel == Daniel Phillips [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Daniel I'd cheerfully hand this coding effort off to someone more familiar with
this
Daniel particular neck of the kernel woods - you, Davem and Marcelo come to mind,
Daniel but if
23 matches
Mail list logo
