On Tue, 20 Aug 2002 11:54, Philipp Schmidt wrote:
> within this discussion, i got the idea to put an external journal for
> the ext3fs on an raid1-volume the real data on a raid5, hopefully, when
> writing the journal out to the disk having more data to be written an
> once - this would be worth a
On Tue, 2002-08-20 00:42:31 +0200, Russell Coker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote in message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On Mon, 19 Aug 2002 17:17, you wrote:
> > True. Do you know why ext2 sync-mounted is so abysmally slow? I mean,
> > our RAID was barely breaking a sweat, and bonnie++ was barely using 2-3%
On Mon, 19 Aug 2002 17:17, you wrote:
> True. Do you know why ext2 sync-mounted is so abysmally slow? I mean,
> our RAID was barely breaking a sweat, and bonnie++ was barely using 2-3%
> CPU, and yet, things just wouldn't go any faster, what's the bottleneck?
Write back caching is simply a great
On Mon, 19 Aug 2002 00:51, you wrote:
> reply to my last email? I'm sorry to bother, but I'm trying to find a
I missed that, but it seems you raise the same issues here.
> suitable filesystem and mount options for a qmail queue. DJB says no to
> ext2 unless it's sync mounted, but I found abysma
> Rumour has it that data=journal can actually improve performance in some
> situations. If a program is writing lots of small files synchronously
(quite
> common for a mail server that has one tiny control file for every
message,
> and the average message file isn't too big) then journalling the
I decided that this message is better for Debian-ISP, so I replied to the
list and BCC'd you. I hope you don't object.
On Sun, 18 Aug 2002 01:20, you wrote:
> I'm having some trouble finding info on this stuff and found a
> knowledgeable-sounding post of yours on debian-isp. Please ignore if
>
6 matches
Mail list logo
