On 2/15/11 11:50 AM, Ralf Ertzinger wrote:
> Moin.
>
> On Tue, 15 Feb 2011 10:07:18 -0600, Eric Sandeen wrote
>
>>> Why isn't it the Fedora default?
>>>
>>> Rahul
>>
>> The simple answer is, usually, Fedora kernel doesn't fork
>> upstream.
>
> How is changing mount options for a file system "f
Moin.
On Tue, 15 Feb 2011 10:07:18 -0600, Eric Sandeen wrote
> > Why isn't it the Fedora default?
> >
> > Rahul
>
> The simple answer is, usually, Fedora kernel doesn't fork upstream.
How is changing mount options for a file system "forking upstream"?
It's just a config file entry. And not eve
On 02/15/2011 09:05 AM, Gerd v. Egidy wrote:
(except for ext3, where, for data integrity with a volatile writeback
cache, defaults + barriers=1, since that safe default was never accepted
upstream)
>>> Why isn't it the Fedora default?
>> Excellent question - we probably should flip i
> >> (except for ext3, where, for data integrity with a volatile writeback
> >> cache, defaults + barriers=1, since that safe default was never accepted
> >> upstream)
> >
> > Why isn't it the Fedora default?
>
> Excellent question - we probably should flip it over in fedora to the safe
> default
W dniu 15 lutego 2011 00:21 użytkownik Eric Sandeen
napisał:
[..]
> There is no real best-practice tuning without workload details;
> without that, "defaults" is best practice. :)
>
> (except for ext3, where, for data integrity with a volatile writeback
> cache, defaults + barriers=1, since that
On 2/15/11 7:52 AM, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> On 02/15/2011 04:51 AM, Eric Sandeen wrote:
>> There is no real best-practice tuning without workload details;
>> without that, "defaults" is best practice. :)
>>
>> (except for ext3, where, for data integrity with a volatile writeback
>> cache, defaults
On 02/15/2011 05:52 AM, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> On 02/15/2011 04:51 AM, Eric Sandeen wrote:
>> There is no real best-practice tuning without workload details;
>> without that, "defaults" is best practice. :)
>>
>> (except for ext3, where, for data integrity with a volatile writeback
>> cache, defa
On 02/15/2011 04:51 AM, Eric Sandeen wrote:
> There is no real best-practice tuning without workload details;
> without that, "defaults" is best practice. :)
>
> (except for ext3, where, for data integrity with a volatile writeback
> cache, defaults + barriers=1, since that safe default was never
On 2/14/11 2:14 PM, Michał Piotrowski wrote:
> W dniu 14 lutego 2011 20:47 użytkownik Eric Sandeen
> napisał:
>> On 2/13/11 12:29 PM, Dennis Jacobfeuerborn wrote:
>>> On 02/12/2011 11:52 PM, Ric Wheeler wrote:
On 02/12/2011 05:31 PM, Michał Piotrowski wrote:
...
>>> If ext3 was running fine
W dniu 14 lutego 2011 20:47 użytkownik Eric Sandeen
napisał:
> On 2/13/11 12:29 PM, Dennis Jacobfeuerborn wrote:
>> On 02/12/2011 11:52 PM, Ric Wheeler wrote:
>>> On 02/12/2011 05:31 PM, Michał Piotrowski wrote:
Hi,
W dniu 12 lutego 2011 23:19 użytkownik Ric Wheeler
napisał:
On 2/13/11 12:29 PM, Dennis Jacobfeuerborn wrote:
> On 02/12/2011 11:52 PM, Ric Wheeler wrote:
>> On 02/12/2011 05:31 PM, Michał Piotrowski wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> W dniu 12 lutego 2011 23:19 użytkownik Ric Wheeler
>>>napisał:
On 02/12/2011 05:12 PM, Michał Piotrowski wrote:
> Hi,
>
On 02/13/2011 01:29 PM, Dennis Jacobfeuerborn wrote:
snip
>>
>> Good to hear that it worked!
>>
>> Note that the barrier code makes your data safer, so you should run with it
>> on
>> by default (unless you really don't care about the file system).
>
>
> If ext3 was running fine without barriers
W dniu 13 lutego 2011 19:29 użytkownik Dennis Jacobfeuerborn
napisał:
> On 02/12/2011 11:52 PM, Ric Wheeler wrote:
>>
>> On 02/12/2011 05:31 PM, Michał Piotrowski wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> W dniu 12 lutego 2011 23:19 użytkownik Ric Wheeler
>>> napisał:
On 02/12/2011 05:12 PM, Michał
On 02/12/2011 11:52 PM, Ric Wheeler wrote:
> On 02/12/2011 05:31 PM, Michał Piotrowski wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> W dniu 12 lutego 2011 23:19 użytkownik Ric Wheeler
>>napisał:
>>> On 02/12/2011 05:12 PM, Michał Piotrowski wrote:
Hi,
I added a disc to my box. I wanted to use ext4. I run
W dniu 12 lutego 2011 23:52 użytkownik Ric Wheeler
napisał:
> On 02/12/2011 05:31 PM, Michał Piotrowski wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> W dniu 12 lutego 2011 23:19 użytkownik Ric Wheeler
>> napisał:
>>>
>>> On 02/12/2011 05:12 PM, Michał Piotrowski wrote:
Hi,
I added a disc to my box.
On 02/12/2011 05:31 PM, Michał Piotrowski wrote:
> Hi,
>
> W dniu 12 lutego 2011 23:19 użytkownik Ric Wheeler
> napisał:
>> On 02/12/2011 05:12 PM, Michał Piotrowski wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> I added a disc to my box. I wanted to use ext4. I run fs_mark to test
>>> speed, to my surprise I heard a re
On 02/12/2011 05:12 PM, Michał Piotrowski wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I added a disc to my box. I wanted to use ext4. I run fs_mark to test
> speed, to my surprise I heard a really strange noises.
>
> It's very strange because the drive is new
>9 Power_On_Hours 0x0032 100 100 000Old_age
Hi,
W dniu 12 lutego 2011 23:19 użytkownik Ric Wheeler
napisał:
> On 02/12/2011 05:12 PM, Michał Piotrowski wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I added a disc to my box. I wanted to use ext4. I run fs_mark to test
>> speed, to my surprise I heard a really strange noises.
>>
>> It's very strange because the dr
Hi,
I added a disc to my box. I wanted to use ext4. I run fs_mark to test
speed, to my surprise I heard a really strange noises.
It's very strange because the drive is new
9 Power_On_Hours 0x0032 100 100 000Old_age
Always - 12
# fs_mark -d test/
[..]
FSUse%
19 matches
Mail list logo
