On Saturday 20 August 2005 15:39, Markus Hochholdinger wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Am Samstag, 20. August 2005 15:16 schrieb Markus Hochholdinger:
> > Uhm, i now have to test this with async ubd devices because i had the
> > sync option for ubd on.
About the host FS, I've seen a paper from LinuxSymposium2005
Hi,
Am Samstag, 20. August 2005 15:16 schrieb Markus Hochholdinger:
> Uhm, i now have to test this with async ubd devices because i had the sync
> option for ubd on.
ok, async ubd gets 18-20MB/s. So ubd to a partition is twice faster!
Can anybody tell me if async ubd to a partition is save e.g.
Hi,
Am Samstag, 20. August 2005 06:55 schrieb Jason Clark:
> I run on real block devices (in my case, linux software RAID 1 devices)
> for each of my umls. Im currently running 4 UMLS on a box, each with their
> own RAID 1 md device. Works out pretty well, the performance is good and
> the host s
I run on real block devices (in my case, linux software RAID 1 devices)
for each of my umls. Im currently running 4 UMLS on a box, each with their
own RAID 1 md device. Works out pretty well, the performance is good and
the host system doesnt get anywhere near as bogged down when a guest does
Hi,
can anybody tell me which is the best performing fs for a running uml? How
much of the performce of the disks can i get through to the uml?
I tried ubd files on a ext3 filesystem on the host. But the performance was
very bad. Then i tried nfs and it performs better and it has the advantages
