ller and MB here.
Ming
On Thu, 2006-04-27 at 15:48 +0200, Sander wrote:
> Ming Zhang wrote (ao):
> > read u review. one thing i am not quite understand is the
> >
> > "Numbers speak from themselves. It's interesting to note that all
> > filesystems top the
read u review. one thing i am not quite understand is the
"Numbers speak from themselves. It's interesting to note that all
filesystems top the write speed at ~106MB/s and read speed at ~125MB/s.
It seem we're hitting 32bit PCI throughput limit here ."
since u said the iram use pci slot for power
On Sat, 2005-11-12 at 20:56 -0600, David Masover wrote:
> Ming Zhang wrote:
> > On Sat, 2005-11-12 at 15:46 -0600, David Masover wrote:
> >
> >>Ming Zhang wrote:
> >>
> >>>On Fri, 2005-11-11 at 16:56 -0800, Peter van Hardenberg wrote:
> >>>
cumstance, if less than that, should we just
> leave the last one we put in, or replace it with this one?]
>
>
> On 11/12/05, Ming Zhang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > :P yes, cat will modify the last access time as well. but is that really
> > worthy a versio
:P yes, cat will modify the last access time as well. but is that really
worthy a version? maybe so, since the version storage overhead is not
big anyway.
On Sat, 2005-11-12 at 18:27 -0800, Hans Reiser wrote:
> maybe cat not touch.
On Sat, 2005-11-12 at 20:56 -0500, michael chang wrote:
> On 11/12/05, michael chang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > That way, if there is version X which is a file, and verison Y is just
> > a line at the top, the compression eliminates the duplication, so
> > instead of
> >
> > (old version + new
On Sat, 2005-11-12 at 20:55 -0500, michael chang wrote:
> On 11/12/05, Ming Zhang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Sat, 2005-11-12 at 14:54 -0800, Hans Reiser wrote:
> > > David Masover wrote:
> > >
> > > >Ming Zhang wrote:
> > > >
>
On Sat, 2005-11-12 at 14:54 -0800, Hans Reiser wrote:
> David Masover wrote:
>
> >Ming Zhang wrote:
> >
> >
> >>On Fri, 2005-11-11 at 16:56 -0800, Peter van Hardenberg wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>>On November 11, 2005
On Sat, 2005-11-12 at 15:46 -0600, David Masover wrote:
> Ming Zhang wrote:
> > On Fri, 2005-11-11 at 16:56 -0800, Peter van Hardenberg wrote:
> >
> >>On November 11, 2005 05:59 am, John Gilmore wrote:
> >>
> >>>Does anybody remember GoBack? It was a
On Fri, 2005-11-11 at 16:56 -0800, Peter van Hardenberg wrote:
> On November 11, 2005 05:59 am, John Gilmore wrote:
> > Does anybody remember GoBack? It was a versioning
> > system for windows 95/98 that was incredibly flexible and useful. Tracked
> > all changes to the whole disk. Old versions of
On Mon, 2005-08-29 at 16:34 -0700, Hans Reiser wrote:
> >>>
> >>It would be useful to add such functionality to sys_reiser4.
> >>
> >>
> >
> >hope u can add to your todo list and hope later i can contribute some.
> >
> >Ming
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> It is on our todo list, and it is importan
On Mon, 2005-08-29 at 13:19 -0700, Hans Reiser wrote:
> Ming Zhang wrote:
>
> >Hi folks
> >
> >I would like to investigate the file name look up performance here.
> >
> >assumed i have file name that is in digits, like 1,2,5,12, 43, 61,
> >98,300...
>
On Mon, 2005-08-29 at 22:01 +0400, Vladimir V. Saveliev wrote:
> Hello
>
> Ming Zhang wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > I saw from document that small files will be packed into meta-data thus
> > save an extra data block read.
> >
> > how small is the boundary
654104 1% /root/t
[EMAIL PROTECTED] root]# rpm -q reiserfs-utils
reiserfs-utils-3.6.13-1
On Fri, 2005-08-26 at 21:04 +0400, Vladimir V. Saveliev wrote:
> Hello
>
> Ming Zhang wrote:
> > Hi, folks
> >
> > I am not sure if this is normal or not.
> >
> > I try t
On Mon, 2005-08-29 at 11:28 -0400, Jeff Mahoney wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Ming Zhang wrote:
> >>>any way to store these bitmap together?
> > The "old" reiserfs disk format did exactly that. However, the gain
> >
On Mon, 2005-08-29 at 10:51 -0400, Jeff Mahoney wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Ming Zhang wrote:
> > On Mon, 2005-08-29 at 10:26 -0400, Jeff Mahoney wrote:
> > No. Block size is the declared filesystem blocksize, not the hardware
> > s
Hi,
I saw from document that small files will be packed into meta-data thus
save an extra data block read.
how small is the boundary? i guess it has related with file block size.
assume it is 4KB by default.
so will
< 4KB be packed?
= 4KB be packed?
> 4KB be packed? (it is NO here i bet.)
T
On Mon, 2005-08-29 at 10:07 -0400, Ric Wheeler wrote:
>
> Ming Zhang wrote:
>
> >On Mon, 2005-08-29 at 09:46 -0400, Ric Wheeler wrote:
> >
> >>It is also interesting to compare reiserfs vs ext3 when writing single
> >>threaded across the life spa
On Mon, 2005-08-29 at 10:26 -0400, Jeff Mahoney wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Ming Zhang wrote:
> > On Sun, 2005-08-28 at 14:44 -0400, Jeff Mahoney wrote:
> >>* We don't cache any other metadata (other than the superblock, which is
in sort my file name as i wish?
thanks!
ming
On Sat, 2005-08-27 at 18:59 -0400, Ming Zhang wrote:
> Hi folks
>
> I would like to investigate the file name look up performance here.
>
> assumed i have file name that is in digits, like 1,2,5,12, 43, 61,
> 98,300...
>
> so
ew weeks,
>
looking forward to seeing.
what u mean new ext3?
thanks!
ming
> Regards,
>
> Ric
>
>
> Ming Zhang wrote:
>
> >have a quick check on u site and it is interesting.
> >
> >but this is more like a validation tool instead of performance bench
On Mon, 2005-08-29 at 14:37 +0200, Grzegorz Kulewski wrote:
> On Mon, 29 Aug 2005, Ric Wheeler wrote:
>
> >
> > I have a file system benchmark that we use to measure synchronous file
> > writing using different synch techniques.
> >
> > I will be happy to share it if there is interest,
>
> I am
On Sun, 2005-08-28 at 14:44 -0400, Jeff Mahoney wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Ming Zhang wrote:
> > On Sat, 2005-08-27 at 20:01 -0400, Jeff Mahoney wrote:
> >
> >> yes, i have a 12*400GB SATA MD raid that want to store my huge nu
On Sat, 2005-08-27 at 20:01 -0400, Jeff Mahoney wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Ming Zhang wrote:
> > On Sat, 2005-08-27 at 15:29 -0400, Jeff Mahoney wrote:
> >>>are this bitmap data is pinned into system thus will not be swapped out?
&g
On Sat, 2005-08-27 at 23:45 +0200, Christian Iversen wrote:
> On Saturday 27 August 2005 21:29, Jeff Mahoney wrote:
> > Ming Zhang wrote:
> > > On Fri, 2005-08-26 at 21:32 +0400, Vladimir V. Saveliev wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > one more question about t
Hi folks
I would like to investigate the file name look up performance here.
assumed i have file name that is in digits, like 1,2,5,12, 43, 61,
98,300...
so how they will be hashed.
and if i want to look up file named as 64 while no such file available,
any quick way to find the file 61 in uppe
On Sat, 2005-08-27 at 15:29 -0400, Jeff Mahoney wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Ming Zhang wrote:
> > On Fri, 2005-08-26 at 21:32 +0400, Vladimir V. Saveliev wrote:
> >
> >
> > one more question about this bitmap blocks
> >
On Fri, 2005-08-26 at 21:32 +0400, Vladimir V. Saveliev wrote:
one more question about this bitmap blocks
are this bitmap data is pinned into system thus will not be swapped out?
Thanks!
Ming
> Yes. On mount reiserfs reads all bitmap blocks to memory. Those blocks are
> spread over whole d
On Fri, 2005-08-26 at 21:32 +0400, Vladimir V. Saveliev wrote:
> Hello
>
> > On Fri, 2005-08-26 at 13:08 -0400, Ming Zhang wrote:
> >>i think 3.2TB partition is not that big these days right?
> >>
> >>i would think some people that hold millions of files w
n log (md0)
ReiserFS: md0: Using r5 hash to sort names
so i could not understand why mount a fs with 0 files is same time with
mount a fs with 1M files.
Thanks!
Ming
On Fri, 2005-08-26 at 13:08 -0400, Ming Zhang wrote:
> i think 3.2TB partition is not that big these days right?
>
>
second. so this is because read meta data and metadata is
not continuous on disk?
ming
On Fri, 2005-08-26 at 21:04 +0400, Vladimir V. Saveliev wrote:
> Hello
>
> Ming Zhang wrote:
> > Hi, folks
> >
> > I am not sure if this is normal or not.
> >
> > I t
Hi, folks
I am not sure if this is normal or not.
I try to create&use a reiserfs on a 8 disk raid0. Then I found that mkfs
need ~90 sec and mount need ~70 seconds.
Is there anything wrong on my side?
Thanks!
Ming
Detailed info followed.
32 matches
Mail list logo
