Jeff Dike wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
>> In one problem case, the dstat on the host shows a constant read
>> and write load, with the read being perhaps a fourth of the amount
>> written. The write load and the total throughput inside UML is
>> stable somewhere between 300 to 600 kB/s, dependi
Paolo Giarrusso wrote:
> --- Jeff Dike <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ha scritto:
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
>
>>> In the other problem case, the dstat on the host shows only write
>>> load of good magnitude, around 16 MB/s. But it is writing a whole
>>> lot more than what happens on the guest side. In fact,
--- Jeff Dike <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ha scritto:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
> > In the other problem case, the dstat on the host
> shows only write load
> > of good magnitude, around 16 MB/s. But it is
> writing a whole lot more
> > than what happens on the guest side. In fact, in
> one case, 15 tim
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
> In one problem case, the dstat on the host shows a constant read and
> write load, with the read being perhaps a fourth of the amount
> written. The write load and the total throughput inside UML is stable
> somewhere between 300 to 600 kB/s, depending on the drive tested.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Tuesday 08 February 2005 12:11, Nuutti Kotivuori wrote:
>> I am wondering what is the status of ubd=mmap these days
[...]
>> The same questions about /dev/anon, with and without ubd=mmap.
>
> Both things are not working... ubd-mmap, also, cannot work, so it's
> going
On Tuesday 08 February 2005 12:11, Nuutti Kotivuori wrote:
> I am wondering what is the status of ubd=mmap these days. The guest
> kernel I am interested about would be 2.6.9-bs5 (or bs6) - and the
> upcoming 2.6.11, if all goes well with that. Both COW backed files,
> plain files and LVM device fi
I am wondering what is the status of ubd=mmap these days. The guest
kernel I am interested about would be 2.6.9-bs5 (or bs6) - and the
upcoming 2.6.11, if all goes well with that. Both COW backed files,
plain files and LVM device files are interesting.
Is is still known to eat filesystems, or is t
2005-01-12, sze keltezéssel 18:26-kor Blaisorblade ezt írta:
> On Wednesday 12 January 2005 15:46, Hegedus Gabor wrote:
> > Hi!
> >
> > How stable is the ubd=mmap option? Can I use it on a real server?
> No - that has been deprecated - in current UMLs it should even be removed.
And what can I use i
On Wednesday 12 January 2005 15:46, Hegedus Gabor wrote:
> Hi!
>
> How stable is the ubd=mmap option? Can I use it on a real server?
No - that has been deprecated - in current UMLs it should even be removed.
--
Paolo Giarrusso, aka Blaisorblade
Linux registered user n. 292729
http://www.user-mode-
Hi!
How stable is the ubd=mmap option? Can I use it on a real server?
thanks
HyGy
---
The SF.Net email is sponsored by: Beat the post-holiday blues
Get a FREE limited edition SourceForge.net t-shirt from ThinkGeek.
It's fun and FREE -- well,
10 matches
Mail list logo
