Ivan put on what was left for him. Here two considerations began to trouble
-
link below :))
gate.b5zihmzizqygfbt7ytbpgbtb.dehairernfke.com
--
the glass nearly broke, the tops of the maples and lindens rustled
distasteful. Wrinkling his face, he asked Stravinsky in turn: 'You
Hello
Hifumi Hisashi wrote:
michael chang wrote:
Surely we don't want this. Look at the papers on Namesys's websites,
about the atomicaty and the banking example. But that's just my
personal opinion. Besides, I believe it's more likely that usually
the power gets lost than the SCSI or
A souped up version that makes data accessable to all applications designed
to take advantage of it. Which, if you think about it, is what MS has been
saying they're intending to do for ages.
As for space usage, I'm sure it won't use more than Google Desktop Search
does, indexing every bit of
literally reeling with agitation, which could be seen even from afar.
-
link below :))
gate.pwvyujvgc2vutpp1c771u7pp.dehairernfke.com
--
joyfully capering about on the moist grass. Suddenly she stopped dancing and
someone told her that after all these years I would be leading her
michael chang writes:
On 8/30/05, Kris Van Bruwaene [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I recently discovered that scripts have become non-executable on my
reiserfs share, even though the -x flags are set:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:/home/kris# cat tst
#! /usr/bin/perl -w
print Hello world\n;
Hello People!
Just got a new harddrive and as i'm pretty pleased with reiser4 i
thought i'll make it reiser4. But then i realized that it uses almost
1/6 of the hd for nothing
mkfs.reiser4 /dev/hde1:
/dev/hde1 reiser4222G 7,5M 222G 1% /shared
mkfs.reiserfs
/dev/hde1 reiserfs233G
On Thu, 1 Sep 2005 13:46:04 +0200
Thomas Kuther [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hello People!
Just got a new harddrive and as i'm pretty pleased with reiser4 i
thought i'll make it reiser4. But then i realized that it uses almost
1/6 of the hd for nothing
mkfs.reiser4 /dev/hde1:
/dev/hde1
Hello
Thomas Kuther wrote:
On Thu, 1 Sep 2005 13:46:04 +0200
Thomas Kuther [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hello People!
Just got a new harddrive and as i'm pretty pleased with reiser4 i
thought i'll make it reiser4. But then i realized that it uses almost
1/6 of the hd for nothing
mkfs.reiser4
250GB disk
Well, 250GB is the marketing capacity, the real formatted capacity is
always less (ask fdisk) also of course you have 1024 vs 1000
reiser4 reserves 5% of disk space for its internal needs.
So, do you mean this 5% is for metadata, and thus it would be used anyway
on any
On Thu, 01 Sep 2005 16:53:32 +0400
Vladimir V. Saveliev [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hello
Thomas Kuther wrote:
On Thu, 1 Sep 2005 13:46:04 +0200
Thomas Kuther [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hello People!
Just got a new harddrive and as i'm pretty pleased with reiser4 i
thought i'll make it
Am Donnerstag, 1. September 2005 15:05 schrieb Thomas Kuther:
On Thu, 01 Sep 2005 16:53:32 +0400
Vladimir V. Saveliev [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hello
[...]
reiser4 reserves 5% of disk space for its internal needs.
Ah OK, that computes. So i'll go with reiserfs on that big one (11 GB
reiser4 reserves 5% of disk space for its internal needs.
5% of today's big disks seems a little excessive. Does reiser4 really need
that much space or would less also suffice without compromising performance?
Is there research available which makes up the basis for the 5% number?
On Thu, 01 Sep 2005 15:03:43 +0200
PFC [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
250GB disk
Well, 250GB is the marketing capacity, the real formatted capacity
is always less (ask fdisk) also of course you have 1024 vs 1000
yeah see my 2. mail - 233 GB is the true (1024 based) size of the disk
reiser4
On Thu, 1 Sep 2005 15:13:36 +0200
Marcel Hilzinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Am Donnerstag, 1. September 2005 15:05 schrieb Thomas Kuther:
On Thu, 01 Sep 2005 16:53:32 +0400
Vladimir V. Saveliev [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hello
[...]
reiser4 reserves 5% of disk space for its
Thomas Kuther wrote:
Ah OK, that computes. So i'll go with reiserfs on that big one (11 GB
for internal stuff is too much i have to admit).
Thanks!
Tom
Other filesystems will also consume space (most of them, more so than
reiserfs or reiser4), they will just allocate it incrementally with
On Thu, 01 Sep 2005 14:13:43 +0100
Lexington Luthor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Thomas Kuther wrote:
Ah OK, that computes. So i'll go with reiserfs on that big one (11
GB for internal stuff is too much i have to admit).
Thanks!
Tom
Other filesystems will also consume space (most of
Hello
Peter Staubach wrote:
reiser4 reserves 5% of disk space for its internal needs.
5% of today's big disks seems a little excessive. Does reiser4 really need
that much space or would less also suffice without compromising
performance?
No. of course.
reiser4 should be more careful
On 9/1/05, LiFe [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
pretty fast. Unfortunately, as indicated before, they seem to have based the
bit storage mechanism on NTFS, so slow writes, massive fragmentation,
breakable jounaling.
Bah, in that case, I'll probably just end up sticking with
FAT/reiserfs dual-boots
On 9/1/05, Thomas Kuther [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 1 Sep 2005 15:13:36 +0200
Marcel Hilzinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Am Donnerstag, 1. September 2005 15:05 schrieb Thomas Kuther:
On Thu, 01 Sep 2005 16:53:32 +0400
Vladimir V. Saveliev [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
reiser4
We purchase unpaid Judgments
New found money to you and justice at the same time
You can reach us at:
8 8 8-978-3999 or 3 1 0-495-0934 from Canada
More information or to un-subscribe or to see our address.
Shakespeare, to whom you all defer, he replied. Do you not remember that he
says:
On 9/1/05, Kris Van Bruwaene [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
michael chang [EMAIL PROTECTED] schreef:
On 9/1/05, Kris Van Bruwaene [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Looks like you've hit it. How come it's noexec here and exec/defaults in
/etc/fstab ??
How are you mounting the filesystem? E.g. from
Peter Staubach wrote:
reiser4 reserves 5% of disk space for its internal needs.
5% of today's big disks seems a little excessive. Does reiser4 really
need
that much space or would less also suffice without compromising
performance?
Is there research available which makes up the basis
Hans Reiser wrote:
Research for filesystems generally says that as you get more than 85%
full the performance goes down, by a lot as you get close to 100%. 5%
is probably too little rather than too much.
Wow. What is all that space used for? Other journalling file systems that
I have
Am Donnerstag, 1. September 2005 18:06 schrieb Peter Staubach:
Hans Reiser wrote:
Research for filesystems generally says that as you get more than 85%
full the performance goes down, by a lot as you get close to 100%. 5%
is probably too little rather than too much.
Wow. What is all that
Peter Staubach wrote:
Hans Reiser wrote:
Research for filesystems generally says that as you get more than 85%
full the performance goes down, by a lot as you get close to 100%. 5%
is probably too little rather than too much.
Wow. What is all that space used for? Other journalling file
David Masover wrote:
Peter Staubach wrote:
Hans Reiser wrote:
Research for filesystems generally says that as you get more than 85%
full the performance goes down, by a lot as you get close to 100%. 5%
is probably too little rather than too much.
Wow. What is all that space used
Hans Reiser wrote:
Wow. What is all that space used for? Other journalling file
systems that
I have seen have limited things like journals to a much smaller space,
BSD FFS has a 10% limit unless you are root. They are correct to do so.
Yes, they reserve that space so that
Are there any forms of documentation that have to deal with reiser5 yet.
It was mentioned on ther reiser4 homepage that reiser5 is projected to
be a distributed extention of reiser4.
I am intruiged by the plugin structure of reiser4, and am intested in
Disributed File Systems.
Is Reiser5 on the
Peter Staubach wrote:
Hans Reiser wrote:
Wow. What is all that space used for? Other journalling file
systems that
I have seen have limited things like journals to a much smaller space,
BSD FFS has a 10% limit unless you are root. They are correct to do so.
Yes, they
Hi,
Is there a r4-patch cooking for 2.6.13 ?
Is the requirement for not enabling 4k-stacks going away soon?
If I patch a vanilla kernel with r4, and sop using r4, would you say that the
changes I introduced by patching are rather safe to the rest of the kernel, or
would you recomend going
Hans Reiser wrote:
Journaling, and reserving space for good allocation, are totally
different concerns, I don't understand why you guys are conflating them.
Agreed, that journaling and reserving space for good allocation are
separate,
except that often the space for the journal is
On 9/1/05, Pysiak Satriani [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
Is there a r4-patch cooking for 2.6.13 ?
Is the requirement for not enabling 4k-stacks going away soon?
If I patch a vanilla kernel with r4, and sop using r4, would you say that the
changes I introduced by patching are rather safe to
Pysiak Satriani wrote:
Hi,
Is there a r4-patch cooking for 2.6.13 ?
Maybe. But the patches from 2.6.13-rc6-mm2 applied and ran without any
trouble at all. 2.6.13-mm1 is out, but I haven't gotten a chance to try it.
For the record, the script to patch just reiser4 from broken-out
Hello David,
Thursday, September 1, 2005, 8:43:33 PM, you wrote:
Maybe. But the patches from 2.6.13-rc6-mm2 applied and ran without any
trouble at all. 2.6.13-mm1 is out, but I haven't gotten a chance to try it.
Ok, thanks for the script to get it out of broken-out.
Is the requirement for
Gregory Maxwell wrote:
On 9/1/05, Pysiak Satriani [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
Is there a r4-patch cooking for 2.6.13 ?
Is the requirement for not enabling 4k-stacks going away soon?
If I patch a vanilla kernel with r4, and sop using r4, would you say that the
changes I introduced by
Peter Staubach wrote:
Hans Reiser wrote:
Research for filesystems generally says that as you get more than 85%
full the performance goes down, by a lot as you get close to 100%. 5%
is probably too little rather than too much.
Wow. What is all that space used for?
Emptiness. So that
On Wed, 31 Aug 2005 20:35:52 -0700
Hans Reiser [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Thanks much Hifumi!
Chris, please comment on the patch.
The problem is that I'm not always making the inode dirty during the
reiserfs_file_write. The get_block based write function does an
explicit commit during O_SYNC
On 9/1/05, Peter Staubach [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hans Reiser wrote:
Research for filesystems generally says that as you get more than 85%
full the performance goes down, by a lot as you get close to 100%. 5%
is probably too little rather than too much.
Wow. What is all that space
On 9/1/05, lares Moreau [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Are there any forms of documentation that have to deal with reiser5 yet.
It was mentioned on ther reiser4 homepage that reiser5 is projected to
be a distributed extention of reiser4.
I am intruiged by the plugin structure of reiser4, and am
On 9/1/05, Kris Van Bruwaene [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
michael chang [EMAIL PROTECTED] schreef:
mount -o remount,exec /home
Bingo:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:/home/kris# mount -o remount,exec /home
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:/home/kris# cat /etc/mtab | grep home
/dev/hda3 /home reiserfs rw,nosuid,nodev 0 0
On Sun, 28 Aug 2005 16:33:37 +0100, Leo Comerford [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
On 8/25/05, Hubert Chan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, 24 Aug 2005 07:51:19 +0100, Leo Comerford
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
[... lots of stuff snipped ...]
At other levels, of course, the differences assert
41 matches
Mail list logo
