Jeff Dike wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
>> In one problem case, the dstat on the host shows a constant read
>> and write load, with the read being perhaps a fourth of the amount
>> written. The write load and the total throughput inside UML is
>> stable somewhere between 300 to 600 kB/s, dependi
Paolo Giarrusso wrote:
> --- Jeff Dike <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ha scritto:
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
>
>>> In the other problem case, the dstat on the host shows only write
>>> load of good magnitude, around 16 MB/s. But it is writing a whole
>>> lot more than what happens on the guest side. In fact,
--- Jeff Dike <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ha scritto:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
> > In the other problem case, the dstat on the host
> shows only write load
> > of good magnitude, around 16 MB/s. But it is
> writing a whole lot more
> > than what happens on the guest side. In fact, in
> one case, 15 tim
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
> In one problem case, the dstat on the host shows a constant read and
> write load, with the read being perhaps a fourth of the amount
> written. The write load and the total throughput inside UML is stable
> somewhere between 300 to 600 kB/s, depending on the drive tested.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Tuesday 08 February 2005 12:11, Nuutti Kotivuori wrote:
>> I am wondering what is the status of ubd=mmap these days
[...]
>> The same questions about /dev/anon, with and without ubd=mmap.
>
> Both things are not working... ubd-mmap, also, cannot work, so it's
> going
On Tuesday 08 February 2005 12:11, Nuutti Kotivuori wrote:
> I am wondering what is the status of ubd=mmap these days. The guest
> kernel I am interested about would be 2.6.9-bs5 (or bs6) - and the
> upcoming 2.6.11, if all goes well with that. Both COW backed files,
> plain files and LVM device fi
