On Sat, 9 Jun 2012, Alistair Crooks wrote:
I recently started writing a file system for some specific use-cases,
and had to make a number of changes. There was a request that I write
up the steps that needed to be taken, and so this tries to outline
them.
[snip]
Looks like a prime topic for
This makes me think that /etc/daily should take similar steps,
whatever they turn out to be.
Yes, allthough my RAIDframe performance test results show that the effect
decreases with larger block sizes.
I can think of two ways to acheive this (each of which may be absurd given
better knowledge
I can think of two ways to acheive this (each of which may be absurd
given better knowledge of fs internals than I have): Either a
per-process switch disabling atime updates or a way to obtain a
read-only clone of a block device which can be mounted ro,noatime.
The latter will not work, at
On Jun 11, 2012, at 3:45 PM, Edgar Fuß wrote:
This makes me think that /etc/daily should take similar steps,
whatever they turn out to be.
Yes, allthough my RAIDframe performance test results show that the effect
decreases with larger block sizes.
I can think of two ways to acheive this
No, snapshots are supported in 6.0.
Ah, great!
Someone should adjust the ffsconfig(8) man page, then:
$ man fssconfig | tail -5
BUGS
The fss(4) driver is experimental. Be sure you have a backup before you
use it.
NetBSD 6.0_BETAJanuary 31, 2005NetBSD
On Jun 11, 2012, at 5:17 PM, Edgar Fuß wrote:
No, snapshots are supported in 6.0.
Ah, great!
Someone should adjust the ffsconfig(8) man page, then:
$ man fssconfig | tail -5
BUGS
The fss(4) driver is experimental. Be sure you have a backup before you
use it.
NetBSD 6.0_BETA
On Mon, Jun 11, 2012 at 05:17:06PM +0200, Edgar Fu? wrote:
Taking a file system external snapshot should be a quick task
That means a ffsconfig(8) with the backup argument pointing to a
different file system?
Yes, but I have to question whether and why it would improve performance
in this
Yes, but I have to question whether and why it would improve performance
in this case. The stream of atime updates is still happening on the
underlying filesystem, and that is still where you will be doing almost
all of your reads from.
My intent was to mount the snapshot ro,noatime and
On Mon, Jun 11, 2012 at 05:52:27PM +0200, Edgar Fu? wrote:
Yes, but I have to question whether and why it would improve performance
in this case. The stream of atime updates is still happening on the
underlying filesystem, and that is still where you will be doing almost
all of your reads
Thor Lancelot Simon t...@panix.com writes:
On Mon, Jun 11, 2012 at 05:52:27PM +0200, Edgar Fu? wrote:
Yes, but I have to question whether and why it would improve performance
in this case. The stream of atime updates is still happening on the
underlying filesystem, and that is still
On Jun 11, 2012, at 8:25 PM, Manuel Bouyer wrote:
On Mon, Jun 11, 2012 at 01:18:17PM -0400, Greg Troxel wrote:
Thor Lancelot Simon t...@panix.com writes:
On Mon, Jun 11, 2012 at 05:52:27PM +0200, Edgar Fu? wrote:
Yes, but I have to question whether and why it would improve performance
in
hi,
On May 24, 6:55am, y...@mwd.biglobe.ne.jp (YAMAMOTO Takashi) wrote:
-- Subject: Re: lwp resource limit
| hi,
|
| Hello,
|
| This is a new resource limit to prevent users from exhausting kernel
| resources that lwps use.
|
| - The limit is per uid
| - The default is
On Jun 12, 2:46am, y...@mwd.biglobe.ne.jp (YAMAMOTO Takashi) wrote:
-- Subject: Re: lwp resource limit
|
https://bdsc.webapps.blackberry.com/native/reference/com.qnx.doc.neutrino.lib_ref/topic/g/getrlimit.html
|
| if it's incompatible (i don't know), there's no reason to use
| an inconsistent
13 matches
Mail list logo
