On Jan 17, 2008 5:15 PM, David Chinner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 16, 2008 at 01:30:43PM -0800, Valerie Henson wrote:
> > Hi y'all,
> >
> > This is a request for comments on the rewrite of the e2fsck IO
> > parallelization patches I sent o
On Jan 16, 2008 3:49 AM, Pavel Machek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> ext3's "lets fsck on every 20 mounts" is good idea, but it can be
> annoying when developing. Having option to fsck while filesystem is
> online takes that annoyance away.
I'm sure everyone on cc: knows this, but for the record y
On Jan 8, 2008 8:40 PM, Al Boldi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Rik van Riel wrote:
> > Al Boldi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Has there been some thought about an incremental fsck?
> > >
> > > You know, somehow fencing a sub-dir to do an online fsck?
> >
> > Search for "chunkfs"
>
> Sure, and the
On Sun, Sep 30, 2007 at 05:27:03PM -0700, David Miller wrote:
> From: Valerie Henson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2007 19:06:26 -0600
>
> > ebizzy is designed to generate a workload resembling common web
> > application server workloads.
>
> I dow
.
-VAL
2008-08-15 Valerie Henson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* Release 0.2.
* Started reporting a rate of transactions per second rather than
just measuring the time.
* Solaris compatibility, thanks to Rodrigo Rubira Branco
<[EMAIL PROTEC
On Wed, Aug 08, 2007 at 05:54:57PM -0700, Martin Bligh wrote:
> Andrew Morton wrote:
> >On Wed, 08 Aug 2007 14:10:15 -0700
> >"Martin J. Bligh" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >>Why isn't this easily fixable by just adding an additional dirty
> >>flag that says atime has changed? Then we only caus
On Mon, Jul 30, 2007 at 03:31:58PM -0400, Kyle McMartin wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 30, 2007 at 01:04:13PM -0600, Valerie Henson wrote:
> > The Tulip network driver needs a new maintainer! I no longer have
> > time to maintain the Tulip network driver and I'm stepping down. Jeff
Remove Val Henson as tulip maintainer and let her roam free, FREE!
Signed-off-by: Val Henson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--- linux-2.6.orig/MAINTAINERS
+++ linux-2.6/MAINTAINERS
@@ -3569,11 +3569,9 @@ W: http://www.auk.cx/tms380tr/
S: Maintained
TULIP NETWORK DRIVER
-P: Valerie
The Tulip network driver needs a new maintainer! I no longer have
time to maintain the Tulip network driver and I'm stepping down. Jeff
Garzik would be happy to get volunteers.
The only current major outstanding patch I know of is Grant's shutdown
race patch, which was incorrectly dropped as obs
Hey all,
I altered Karuna's cref tool to print the number of seconds it would
take to check the cross-references for a chunk. The results look good
for chunkfs: on my laptop /home file system and a 1 GB chunk size, the
per-chunk cross-reference check time would be an average of 5 seconds
and a ma
I've quit Intel and gone into business as a Linux consultant. Update
my email address in MAINTAINERS.
Signed-off-by: Valerie Henson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--- laptop-2.6.orig/MAINTAINERS
+++ laptop-2.6/MAINTAINERS
@@ -3497,7 +3497,7 @@ S:Maintained
TULIP NETWORK DRIVER
P:
On Mon, Apr 23, 2007 at 02:05:47AM +0530, Karuna sagar K wrote:
> Hi,
>
> The attached code contains program to estimate the cross-chunk
> references for ChunkFS file system (idea from Valh). Below are the
> results:
Nice work! Thank you very much for doing this!
-VAL
-
To unsubscribe from this
On Mon, Apr 23, 2007 at 02:53:33PM -0600, Andreas Dilger wrote:
>
> Also, is it considered a cross-chunk reference if a directory entry is
> referencing an inode in another group? Should there be a continuation
> inode in the local group, or is the directory entry itself enough?
(Sorry for the d
On Fri, May 04, 2007 at 08:23:08AM -0400, Theodore Tso wrote:
> On Thu, May 03, 2007 at 02:14:52PM -0700, Valerie Henson wrote:
>
> > I'd really like to see a generic VFS-level detection of
> > read()/write()/creat()/mkdir()/etc. patterns which could detect things
>
On Thu, May 03, 2007 at 01:44:14AM +1000, David Chinner wrote:
> On Tue, May 01, 2007 at 01:43:18PM -0700, Cabot, Mason B wrote:
> > Hello all,
> >
> > I've been testing the NAS performance of ext3/Openfiler 2.2 against
> > NTFS/WinXP and have found that NTFS significantly outperforms ext3 for
> >
On Fri, Apr 27, 2007 at 11:06:47AM -0400, Jeff Dike wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 26, 2007 at 09:58:25PM -0700, Valerie Henson wrote:
> > Here's an example, spelled out:
> >
> > Allocate file 1 in chunk A.
> > Grow file 1.
> > Chunk A fills up.
> > Alloc
On Fri, Apr 27, 2007 at 12:53:34PM +0200, J??rn Engel wrote:
>
> All this would get easier if continuation inodes were known to be rare.
> You can ditch the doubly-linked list in favor of a pointer to the main
> inode then - traversing the list again is cheap, after all. And you can
> just try to
On Wed, Apr 18, 2007 at 01:25:19PM -0400, Lennart Sorensen wrote:
>
> Does it matter that google's recent report on disk failures indicated
> that SMART never predicted anything useful as far as they could tell?
> Certainly none of my drive failures ever had SMART make any kind of
> indication tha
On Thu, Apr 26, 2007 at 10:47:38AM +0200, Jan Kara wrote:
> Do I get it right that you just have in each cnode a pointer to the
> previous & next cnode? But then if two consecutive cnodes get corrupted,
> you have no way to connect the chain, do you? If each cnode contained
> some unique identifi
On Thu, Apr 26, 2007 at 12:05:04PM -0400, Jeff Dike wrote:
>
> No, I'm referring to a different file. The scenario is that you have
> a growing file in a nearly full disk with files being deleted (and
> thus space being freed) such that allocations for the growing file
> bounce back and forth bet
On Wed, Apr 25, 2007 at 05:38:34AM -0600, Andreas Dilger wrote:
>
> The case where only a fsck of the corrupt chunk is done would not find the
> cnode references. Maybe there needs to be per-chunk info which contains
> a list/bitmap of other chunks that have cnodes shared with each chunk?
Yes, e
On Wed, Apr 25, 2007 at 08:54:34PM +1000, David Chinner wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 24, 2007 at 04:53:11PM -0500, Amit Gud wrote:
> >
> > The structure looks like this:
> >
> > -- --
> > | cnode 0 |-->| cnode 0 |--> to another cnode or NULL
> > --
On Wed, Apr 25, 2007 at 03:34:03PM +0400, Nikita Danilov wrote:
>
> What is more important, design puts (as far as I can see) no upper limit
> on the number of continuation inodes, and hence, even if _average_ fsck
> time is greatly reduced, occasionally it can take more time than ext2 of
> the sa
On Tue, Apr 24, 2007 at 11:34:48PM +0400, Nikita Danilov wrote:
>
> Maybe I failed to describe the problem presicely.
>
> Suppose that all chunks have been checked. After that, for every inode
> I0 having continuations I1, I2, ... In, one has to check that every
> logical block is presented in at
On Mon, Apr 16, 2007 at 01:07:05PM +1000, David Chinner wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 15, 2007 at 08:50:25PM -0400, Rik van Riel wrote:
>
> > IMHO chunkfs could provide a much more promising approach.
>
> Agreed, that's one method of compartmentalising the problem.
Agreed, the chunkfs design is only o
From: Guido Classen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
This small patch fixes two issues with the Lite-On 82c168 PNIC adapters.
I've tested it with two cards in different machines both chip rev 17
The first is the wrong register address CSR6 for writing the MII register
which instead is 0xB8 (this may get a sym
Rev tulip version... things have changed since 2002!
Signed-off-by: Valerie Henson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: Jeff Garzik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
---
drivers/net/tulip/tulip_core.c |6 +++---
1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
--- tulip-2.6-mm-linux.orig/drive
This patch set includes a fix for Lite-on from Guido Classen, some
minor debugging/typo fixes, and a long-need rev to the version (the
last time this was done was 2002!).
-VAL
--
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED
Only print out debugging info for tulip_stop_rxtx if debug is on.
Many cards (including at least two of my own) fail to stop properly
during initialization according to this test with no apparent ill
effects. Worse, it tends to spam logs when the driver doesn't work.
Signed-off-by: Val Henson <[E
Fix an annoying typo - SytemError -> SystemError
Signed-off-by: Valerie Henson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: Jeff Garzik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
---
drivers/net/tulip/interrupt.c |4 ++--
drivers/net/tulip/tulip.h |2 +-
drivers/net/tulip/winbond-840.c |2 +-
3 f
On Mon, Feb 12, 2007 at 09:53:18PM +0200, Petri Kaukasoina wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 12, 2007 at 06:49:39PM +0100, Jan Engelhardt wrote:
> > >The one problem with noatime is that mutt's 'new mail arrived' breaks
> >
> > Just why does not it use mtime then to check for New Mail Arrived, like
>
> I hav
On Mon, Feb 12, 2007 at 10:40:10AM -0500, Dave Jones wrote:
>
> The one problem with noatime is that mutt's 'new mail arrived' breaks
> as you mentioned in the relatime changelog, so I'm surprised that
> they turned it on by default. With relatime fixing that however,
> I'm also unaware of anythi
On Sat, Feb 10, 2007 at 07:54:00PM -0500, Dave Jones wrote:
>
> Whilst on the subject of RELATIME, is there any good reason why
> not to make this a default mount option ?
Ubuntu has been shipping with noatime as the default for some time
now, with no obvious problems (I'm running Ubuntu). I see
On Sat, Feb 10, 2007 at 09:56:07AM -0800, Michael Kerrisk wrote:
> Val,
>
> I'm just updating the mount(2) man page for MS_RELATIME, and this is the
> text I've come up with:
>
>MS_RELATIME(Since Linux 2.6.20)
> When a file on this file system is accessed, only
>
EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: Karel Zak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Signed-off-by: Valerie Henson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
---
mount/mount.8 |7 +++
mount/mount.c |6 ++
mount/mount_constants.h |4
3 files changed, 17 insertions(+)
--- util-linux-2.13-pre7.o
Hi there, Guido,
Jeff resurrected this patch from the misty depths of the past. I
double-checked the docs and the first bug fix is definitely correct.
The second part isn't in the docs, but seems reasonable. Is this
still the patch you are using? Any comments you want to add?
-VAL
> From: Gui
On Tue, Dec 05, 2006 at 08:58:02PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > On Mon, 4 Dec 2006 16:36:20 -0800 Valerie Henson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Add "relatime" (relative atime) support. Relative atime only updates
> > the atime if the previous atime is older
On Mon, Dec 04, 2006 at 04:36:20PM -0800, Valerie Henson wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 04, 2006 at 04:10:07PM -0800, Mark Fasheh wrote:
> > Hi Steve,
> >
> > On Mon, Dec 04, 2006 at 10:54:53AM +, Steven Whitehouse wrote:
> > > > In the future, I'd like to see a
On Mon, Dec 04, 2006 at 04:10:07PM -0800, Mark Fasheh wrote:
> Hi Steve,
>
> On Mon, Dec 04, 2006 at 10:54:53AM +, Steven Whitehouse wrote:
> > > In the future, I'd like to see a "relative atime" mode, which functions
> > > in the manner describ
39 matches
Mail list logo
