On Mon, 31 Jul 2006, David Masover wrote:
David Lang wrote:
On Mon, 31 Jul 2006, David Masover wrote:
Oh, I'm curious -- do hard drives ever carry enough battery/capacitance to
cover their caches? It doesn't seem like it would be that hard/expensive,
and if it is done that w
a large impact once in a while.
the other thing they are seeing as new people start useing them is that the
newbys don't realize they need to do somthing as archaic as running a repacker
periodicly, as a result they let things devolve down to where performance is
really bad without understanding why.
David Lang
equires them :-)
external battery backed cache is readily available, either on high-end raid
controllers or as seperate ram drives (and in raid array boxes), but nothing on
individual drives.
David Lang
On Mon, 31 Jul 2006, Nate Diller wrote:
On 7/31/06, David Lang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Mon, 31 Jul 2006, Nate Diller wrote:
>
> On 7/31/06, Matthias Andree <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Adrian Ulrich wrote:
>>
>> > See also: http://spam.work
120/sec, on high-end drives (15Krpm
scsi's this is 250/sec, and on the 10k rpm drives in the middle it's about
166/sec.
David Lang
the
rate of failures per Gig of storage.
As a result of this the idea of only running on perfect disks that never have
any failures is becomeing significantly less realistic, instead you need to take
measures to survive in the face of minor corruption (including robust
filesystems, raid, etc)
David Lang
uming zero overhead you could fit 18 Million KiB / 0.5 KiB = 36 Million
files on the drive.
thus being scheptical about 40 million files on a 18G drive.
this is only possible if you are abel to have multiple files per 512 byte block.
David Lang
Right, ok...
Here's a quick check of my
On Fri, 27 Aug 2004, Felipe Alfaro Solana wrote:
On Thursday 26 August 2004 23:05, David Lang wrote:
I also don't see why the VFS/Filesystem can't decide that (for example)
this tar.gz is so active that instead of storing it as a tar.gz and
providing a virtual directory of the conten
