On Sat, 2013-09-28 at 20:51 +0200, Thiemo Nagel wrote:
> For what it's worth, the patches look good to me but I didn't
> test them.
>
>
> Thanks for looking! Is there anything still required for the patches
> to be committed?
Dmitrijs, please can you review Thiemo's patches and a
>
> For what it's worth, the patches look good to me but I didn't test them.
>
Thanks for looking! Is there anything still required for the patches to be
committed?
Cheers,
Thiemo
On Mon, 2013-09-16 at 21:18 +0200, Thiemo Nagel wrote:
> Hello Ben,
>
> thanks for your input! I'm attaching a series of patches to wrap up
> what we've discussed so far, more details are in the commit messages
> quoted below.
>
> I've tested the patches by running blockdev-wipe, they are looking
(let's drop CC: I believe that all participants to this discussion are
subscribed to debian-boot, that receves the bug contributions for D-I packages)
Quoting Thiemo Nagel (thiemo.na...@gmail.com):
> > It currently reads: "Erasing data on ${DEVICE}". Maybe something like
> > "Erasing data on ${DE
> If we are changing this anyway, maybe it's a good time to also make the
> template partman-crypto/progress/erase a bit more explicit about
> canceling.
I fully agree!
> It currently reads: "Erasing data on ${DEVICE}". Maybe something like
> "Erasing data on ${DEVICE}. To continue without ereasi
Hi
Thiemo Nagel writes:
> Hello Gaudenz,
>
> thank you for your email!
>
> Any reason why you choose 512k? If I understand your benchmarks right,
>> doubling this to 1M yelds about another 27% gain.
>
>
> I'm sorry, I forgot to mention that I've re-run the benchmarks. After
> removing O_SYNC, t
Hello Gaudenz,
thank you for your email!
Any reason why you choose 512k? If I understand your benchmarks right,
> doubling this to 1M yelds about another 27% gain.
I'm sorry, I forgot to mention that I've re-run the benchmarks. After
removing O_SYNC, the performance was identical for block size
Hi Thiemo
Thanks for working on this.
Thiemo Nagel writes:
> Hello Ben,
>
> thanks for your input! I'm attaching a series of patches to wrap up what
> we've discussed so far, more details are in the commit messages quoted
> below.
>
> I've tested the patches by running blockdev-wipe, they are
Hello Ben,
thanks for your input! I'm attaching a series of patches to wrap up what
we've discussed so far, more details are in the commit messages quoted
below.
I've tested the patches by running blockdev-wipe, they are looking good. I
haven't tried to build the installer with the new block-dev
On Sat, 2013-09-14 at 23:33 +0200, Thiemo Nagel wrote:
[...]
> What I take away from this: For optimal performance, the frequency of
> syncs should be kept low, probably well below 50 Hz, ideally as low as
> possible. I'd be in favour of removing them altogether, but there
> were some OOM issues
I've done another series of benchmarks, measuring time in seconds to write
915 MB. (That is equivalent to 20 stars of output by blockdev-wipe. "n/a"
values simply haven't been measured.) I've tried two different settings
for speed_limit_min:
time0: speed_limit_min=0
time1: speed_limit_min=1000 k
11 matches
Mail list logo
