Hello
michael chang wrote:
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
Vladimir V. Saveliev wrote:
Hello
michael chang wrote:
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
It could probably be a lot less than 5%, 2% is more than enough I would
guess, but we also need to reserve space to get good performance.
I'm more than happy to lose 3 GB on my 60 gb / 5400 rpm crap laptop
drive and have reiser4 transform it into something that feels more like a
big
Leo, did you see my paper on the website, that the future vision button
takes you to? I think it addresses topics relevant to your email.
Best,
Hans
Hi,
The following message appeared in the kernel ring buffer after turning off my
external hard disk connected by usb2 (note: I forget to umount it, but should
reiserfs abort this way?)
SuSE kernel version: (uname -a) Linux laptop 2.6.11.4-21.9-default #1 Fri Aug
19 11:58:59 UTC 2005 i686
Hello
Sebastian Held wrote:
Hi,
The following message appeared in the kernel ring buffer after turning off my
external hard disk connected by usb2 (note: I forget to umount it, but should
reiserfs abort this way?)
well, it should not.
Can you try to mount with the following option: -o
On 9/2/05, Kris Van Bruwaene [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
michael chang wrote:
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
On 9/2/05, Sebastian Held [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The following message appeared in the kernel ring buffer after turning off my
external hard disk connected by usb2 (note: I forget to umount it, but should
reiserfs abort this way?)
Maybe it's something with lazy-alloc or something? Just a
On 9/2/05, Hubert Chan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
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:
It's not so easy. You need to determine
Dnia Fri, 02 Sep 2005 09:19:55 +0200, Hans Reiser [EMAIL PROTECTED] napisał:
It could probably be a lot less than 5%, 2% is more than enough I would
guess, but we also need to reserve space to get good performance.
Maybe You can make it an mkfs.reiser4 option, set 5% to default so it won't
On 9/2/05, Łukasz Mierzwa [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Dnia Fri, 02 Sep 2005 09:19:55 +0200, Hans Reiser [EMAIL PROTECTED] napisał:
It could probably be a lot less than 5%, 2% is more than enough I would
guess, but we also need to reserve space to get good performance.
Maybe You can make it an
I'm looking into it because I am looking into doing a masters focusing
on distributed file systems.
There was a mention of reiser5 being distributed.
I'm intruiged by the plugin system of reiser4, and I am looking into
generating a distributed plugin.
You never know.
On Thu, 2005-09-01 at
Lares Moreau wrote:
I'm looking into it because I am looking into doing a masters focusing
on distributed file systems.
There was a mention of reiser5 being distributed.
I think that's the definition of reiser5. I think that 4, 5, and 6 (at
least, maybe there's a 7?) are defined not in terms
On Fri, 02 Sep 2005 13:34:14 -0500, David Masover [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Lares Moreau wrote:
I'm looking into it because I am looking into doing a masters
focusing on distributed file systems. There was a mention of reiser5
being distributed.
I'm intruiged by the plugin system of reiser4,
Hubert Chan wrote:
On Fri, 02 Sep 2005 13:34:14 -0500, David Masover [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Lares Moreau wrote:
I'm looking into it because I am looking into doing a masters
focusing on distributed file systems. There was a mention of reiser5
being distributed.
I'm intruiged by the plugin
David Masover wrote:
It has one. It's called Lustre.
What Linux needs is good, distributed filesystem that runs on the 2.6
kernel, without users having to pay licensing fees.
Lustre is expensive, but the -mm kernel now has ocfs (or is it ocfs2?)
as well as gfs.
What is wrong with
Just to add another voice to the cachophony, I would like to be able to
select the amount. At any time, not just at mkfs time. For example,
ext2's reserved blocks are set by default to 5%, but I can use tune2fs to
change that to 33% or 0% or whatever makes me happy.
The point is that sometimes
Lexington Luthor wrote:
David Masover wrote:
It has one. It's called Lustre.
What Linux needs is good, distributed filesystem that runs on the 2.6
kernel, without users having to pay licensing fees.
Lustre is expensive, but the -mm kernel now has ocfs (or is it ocfs2?)
as well as gfs.
David Masover wrote:
Don't know about ocfs, I'll look it up later.
But, AFAIK, GFS is for things like ATA-over-ethernet, where you have
multiple machines attached to the same hard drive -- not for situations
where multiple machines each have their own drive, and you want them to
appear as one
On Fri, 2005-09-02 at 14:42 -0500, David Masover wrote:
Hubert Chan wrote:
On Fri, 02 Sep 2005 13:34:14 -0500, David Masover [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Lares Moreau wrote:
I'm looking into it because I am looking into doing a masters
focusing on distributed file systems. There was a
PrCeMeLeVaUlAmXaCiVi
oplerivilitrbinaalag
eciabrexdiatraumamenxisra
6472858568129969
.95.00.96.94.45.55.003.45.75.85
http://www.fleoveare.com
Lexington Luthor wrote:
David Masover wrote:
Don't know about ocfs, I'll look it up later.
But, AFAIK, GFS is for things like ATA-over-ethernet, where you have
multiple machines attached to the same hard drive -- not for situations
where multiple machines each have their own drive, and you
22 matches
Mail list logo
