On Sunday, May 06, 2012 05:19:20, Andrei POPESCU wrote:
> On Vi, 04 mai 12, 15:08:57, Chris Knadle wrote:
...
> > Speed is generally what XFS is good at, *except* when it comes to
> > deletion of a large number of files -- that's where it's slow.
>
> On advise of a list subscriber I have added the
On Vi, 04 mai 12, 15:08:57, Chris Knadle wrote:
>
> Note this means running 'xfs_check' is done when the filesystem is not
> mounted. _Supposedly_ it can also be run if the filesystem is mounted read-
> only, but in practice I find it's best (and easier) to run the XFS commands
> from a LiveCD.
On Friday, May 04, 2012 17:31:23, Camaleón wrote:
> On Fri, 04 May 2012 15:08:57 -0400, Chris Knadle wrote:
> > On Monday, April 30, 2012 10:53:46, Camaleón wrote:
> >> On Sun, 29 Apr 2012 20:16:58 +0200, Martin Steigerwald wrote:
> >> > Am Dienstag, 24. April 2012 schrieb Camaleón:
...
> > The ste
On Fri, 04 May 2012 15:08:57 -0400, Chris Knadle wrote:
> On Monday, April 30, 2012 10:53:46, Camaleón wrote:
>> On Sun, 29 Apr 2012 20:16:58 +0200, Martin Steigerwald wrote:
>> > Am Dienstag, 24. April 2012 schrieb Camaleón:
> ...
>> > XFS might also have long file check times.
>>
>> I still hav
On Monday, April 30, 2012 10:53:46, Camaleón wrote:
> On Sun, 29 Apr 2012 20:16:58 +0200, Martin Steigerwald wrote:
> > Am Dienstag, 24. April 2012 schrieb Camaleón:
...
> > XFS might also have long file check times.
>
> I still have not tried this so I can't really tell but what I've heard on
> X
5 matches
Mail list logo