On Tue, Dec 27, 2005 at 06:31:43PM +, Antoine Martin wrote:
> On Tue, 2005-12-27 at 17:53 +, Antoine Martin wrote:
> > FYI, on amd64 hosts, using vanilla 2.6.15-rc7, then applying latest
> > sf.net patches gives:
> >
> make ARCH=um SUBARCH=i386
> (...)
> CC arch/um/os-Linux/process.
On Wednesday 28 December 2005 23:16, noel anderson wrote:
> Hi All,
> CONFIG_HIGHMEM=y
This is a (big) problem, related to the failure, disable it and recompile.
--
Inform me of my mistakes, so I can keep imitating Homer Simpson's "Doh!".
Paolo Giarrusso, aka Blaisorblade (Skype ID "PaoloGiarrus
On Sat, Dec 31, 2005 at 09:50:22AM +0100, Juraj Holtak wrote:
> new data:
>
> not forcing a sync mount for the guest makes the performance impact of
> disabling write cache very low.
>
> The question is: What`s the smaller evil???
With O_SYNC off, guests are vulnerable to data corruption
if the
new data:
not forcing a sync mount for the guest makes the performance impact of
disabling write cache very low.
The question is: What`s the smaller evil???
juraj
---
This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc. Do you grep through log fil
Am Samstag, den 31.12.2005, 01:39 + schrieb Chris Lightfoot:
> On Sat, Dec 31, 2005 at 12:36:50AM +0100, Juraj Holtak wrote:
> > I still do not understand, why the guests became that much slow. Could
> > somebody explain me why?
>
> Very probably you're suffering from seeing the real seek
> pe
