Chris wrote:
AFAIK this means that the journal is too small for your machine - try
doubling it until there are no more panics.
If so, this is the same class of errors as ZFS (some would call it
"tuning errors"), only this time the space reserved for the on-disk
journal is too small, and the fast
Michael Butler wrote:
I would think that journaling on one drive and storing the resultant
data-set on another would improve performance enormously (reduced
seek-lengths) and more so if they were 1) high-rpm drives (less
rotational latency) and 2) on different buses (no bus/controller
content
> If I understood this thread correctly, the impression of poor
> performance is based on a configuration where both the journal and the
> data are on the same physical drive. Intuitively, this will likely
> penalize any transaction on the volume, read or write, since you're
> asking the drive to n
Chris wrote:
If the only advantage of journaling is to avoid slow fsck's then I may
decide I can live without it, the real attraction to me was been able
to use the much glamorised async which is what made me so shocked when
write speeds were low.
If I understood this thread correctly, the imp
Gary Palmer wrote:
On Sun, Feb 03, 2008 at 09:35:44PM +0100, Ivan Voras wrote:
If so, this is the same class of errors as ZFS (some would call it
"tuning errors"), only this time the space reserved for the on-disk
journal is too small, and the fast drives fill it up before data can be
transf
> AFAIK this means that the journal is too small for your machine - try
> doubling it until there are no more panics.
>
> If so, this is the same class of errors as ZFS (some would call it
> "tuning errors"), only this time the space reserved for the on-disk
> journal is too small, and the fast dri
> I did some experimentation with gjournal a few weeks ago to determine
> how I might partition
> a new server, as well as how large to make my journals and where. I did
> find that for the computers
> I have tested so far, a 1 gig (default size) journal seems to be
> sufficient, but half of that
Ivan Voras wrote:
Chris wrote:
Came back to see box had rebooted itself from a journal related panic.
panic: Journal overflow (joffset=49905408 active=499691355136
inactive=4990$
cpuid = 0
AFAIK this means that the journal is too small for your machine - try
doubling it until there ar
On Sun, Feb 03, 2008 at 09:35:44PM +0100, Ivan Voras wrote:
> Chris wrote:
>
> >Came back to see box had rebooted itself from a journal related panic.
> >
> >panic: Journal overflow (joffset=49905408 active=499691355136
> >inactive=4990$
> >cpuid = 0
>
> AFAIK this means that the journal is
Chris wrote:
Came back to see box had rebooted itself from a journal related panic.
panic: Journal overflow (joffset=49905408 active=499691355136 inactive=4990$
cpuid = 0
AFAIK this means that the journal is too small for your machine - try
doubling it until there are no more panics.
I
10 matches
Mail list logo
