Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Ben LaHaise wrote:
> On Thu, 1 Mar 2001, Stephen C. Tweedie wrote:
>
> > Yep. There shouldn't be any problem increasing the 64KB size, it's
> > only the lack of accounting for the pinned memory which stopped me
> > inc
Hi,
On Thu, Mar 01, 2001 at 11:08:13AM -0500, Ben LaHaise wrote:
> On Thu, 1 Mar 2001, Stephen C. Tweedie wrote:
>
> Actually, how about making it a sysctl? That's probably the most
> reasonable approach for now since the optimal size depends on hardware.
Fine with me.
--Stephen
-
To unsubscr
On Thu, 1 Mar 2001, Stephen C. Tweedie wrote:
> Yep. There shouldn't be any problem increasing the 64KB size, it's
> only the lack of accounting for the pinned memory which stopped me
> increasing it by default.
Actually, how about making it a sysctl? That's probably the most
reasonable approa
Hi,
On Thu, Mar 01, 2001 at 10:44:38AM -0500, Ben LaHaise wrote:
>
> On Thu, 1 Mar 2001, Stephen C. Tweedie wrote:
>
> > Raw IO is always synchronous: it gets flushed to disk before the write
> > returns. You don't get any write-behind with raw IO, so the smaller
> > the blocksize you write in
Hello all,
On Thu, 1 Mar 2001, Stephen C. Tweedie wrote:
> Raw IO is always synchronous: it gets flushed to disk before the write
> returns. You don't get any write-behind with raw IO, so the smaller
> the blocksize you write in, the slower things get.
More importantly, the mainstream raw io c
Hi,
On Wed, Feb 28, 2001 at 03:58:11PM +0100, Martin Rauh wrote:
>
> Writing to an software RAID 0 containing 4 SCSI discs is very fast.
> I get transfer rates of about 100 MBytes/s. The filesystem on the RAID
> is ext2.
>
> Writing to the same RAID directly (that means on the raw device withou
6 matches
Mail list logo
