On Fri, 19 Jan 2001, Manfred Spraul wrote:
>
> I don't see a corruption - neither with 192MB ram nor with 48 MB ram.
> SMP, no SW Raid, ext2, but only 1024 byte/file and only 12500
> files/directory.
>
>
> >
> > With 1 I also had no problem, my next step was 5.
> >
> 1 files need ~1
On Fri, Jan 19, 2001 at 12:36:33PM +0100, Holger Kiehl wrote:
> Would reiserfs be better and does it now work with SW Raid5?
It appears to not work with SW raid5 currently. But I suspect this is the
fault of raid5. I got fs corruption too, some files unreadable, odd sizes in
the terabyte range for
Holger Kiehl wrote:
> > I'm running your test with 48 MB ram, 12500 files, 9 processes in a 156
> > MB partition (swapoff, here is the test partition ;-).
> > With 192MB Ram I don't see the corruption.
> >
> I am not sure if I understand you correctly: with 48MB you do get
> corruption and with 1
On Fri, 19 Jan 2001, Manfred Spraul wrote:
> > Another thing I notice is that the responsiveness of the machine
> > decreases dramatically as the test progresses until it is nearly
> > useless. After the test is done everything is back to normal.
> > The same behavior was observed under 2.2.18.
4 matches
Mail list logo
