On Jun 3, 2008, at 11:26 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 03, 2008 at 03:32:47PM -0700, eric kustarz wrote:
>>
>> On May 29, 2008, at 11:44 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>> [...]
>>>
>>> I remember another hardware arrays (yes, two arrays) test where
>>> vdbench shows
>>> that one array
On May 7, 2008, at 12:47 AM, rae l wrote:
> nnnOn Wed, May 7, 2008 at 11:31 AM, Spencer Shepler
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Cheng,
>>
>> Someone suggested that I point out that filebench and its use
>> of the Sun Contributor Agreement is not much
On Apr 28, 2008, at 11:51 AM, rae l wrote:
...
>
> So I must print out and send the signed agreement, do you agree it's
> troublesome? At least I think so, and I suggest the agreement model
> adopted in linux kernel developement: just one line of Sign-off-by can
> solve the problem.
>
> Sig
On Apr 28, 2008, at 11:51 AM, rae l wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 28, 2008 at 11:13 PM, Spencer Shepler
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>>>> On Sat, Apr 19, 2008 at 7:17 AM, eric kustarz
>>>>>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>>> wrote:
>
On Apr 27, 2008, at 6:54 AM, rae l wrote:
>
> On Sat, Apr 26, 2008 at 1:14 AM, Spencer Shepler
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>> On Sat, Apr 19, 2008 at 7:17 AM, eric kustarz
>>>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> wrote:
>> Hi. Would you be will
On Oct 5, 2007, at 2:55 PM, Ben Rockwood wrote:
> Spencer Shepler wrote:
>>
>> On Oct 5, 2007, at 2:14 PM, Ben Rockwood wrote:
>>
>>> Looks like some files are missing from the distribution. Is this
>>> what was meant by: "Makefile cleanup needs
On Oct 5, 2007, at 2:14 PM, Ben Rockwood wrote:
> Looks like some files are missing from the distribution. Is this
> what was meant by: "Makefile cleanup needs to be done for stand-
> alone builds for OpenSolaris, Linux, and OS/X, etc." ?
Yes. For expediency of getting the source onto sourc
On Aug 10, 2007, at 3:16 PM, eric kustarz wrote:
> Cool.
>
> Yeah we'll definitely take a look at your suggested fix. Just need
> to see if it makes more sense/fits the framework to pass in a mode
> argument instead of dup'ing functionality. We'll look to see if we
> could do something ak
On Jun 1, 2007, at 3:18 PM, Timothy Butler wrote:
Is there a newer version available?
The newest version on sourceforge is almost 2 years old.
I'd like to work on an extension, but don't want to duplicate
work. In particular, I'm wondering if there's been work to
break the posix IO part out i
On Tue, Gordon Marler wrote:
>
> 2. Regardless of where you set $dir to be, the files end up being created in
> whatever directory you were in when you started filebench.
>
> As others have asked on this list, is 1.62 the latest version?
There is a 1.64alpha available at the sourceforge.net dow
On Fri, Prakash Sangappa wrote:
> Spencer Shepler wrote:
> >>It appears that the distributed filesystem implementation should
> >>provide necessary means
> >>to collect such events. I think the responsibility falls squarely on the
> >>distributed file s
On Fri, Prakash Sangappa wrote:
> Darren Kenny wrote:
> >Hi Prakash,
> >
> >I don't think it's the implementation that bridges between the kernel
> >and the user spaces that's important to JDS, and probably most other
> >people - it's the ultimate API that people will have to write to, and
> >I
On Thu, Michael Pogue wrote:
> See also Apple's Spotlight, which is similar to Linux's Beagle. I believe
> that Windows-Next will also have this capability. So, yes, I think this
> should be a primary use case for this new API.
>
> Mike
>
> John Levon wrote:
> >On Wed, May 03, 2006 at 07:31:0
Did you attempt to increase the number of load generating processes
on the client? Were either the client or server CPU's consume entirely?
It would be helpful to also know the storage config on the server.
it is possible that you have max'd the storage config at the server.
Actually, the inform
14 matches
Mail list logo
