On Friday 22 March 2002 13:53, Seth Mos wrote:
> At 13:49 22-3-2002 -0700, Warren Stockton wrote:
> >Well done....
> >Stability has improved tremendously from the earlier version and
> >it is far more econonical on memory.
> sarcasm ?
> If so in contrast to what?
No. I had taken the XFS code from 2.4.9-6SGI-XFS1.0.2 and the XFS CVS updates
and merged it with RH 2.4.9.-21 and built with gcc3-3.0.1-3. I was still
working some issues when I saw this announcement yesterday.
My hacked code would have 98% of memory allocated to cache within 3 minutes
of starting the test. (Beyond this point it was hard-hats only and falling
-31XFS1.1-pre2 running the same test has the cache somewhere between 25% to
75% of physical memory, depending on where the testsuite is in its cycle.
So far I tested 70 drives active where total active open files = 50% of
physical memory (16G) (Test ran about 7hours with no errors or data
corruption before I stopped it.) IO stats showed numbers ext2 can only dream
Currently testing 70 drives active where total active open files = 3x
physical memory. Has been running 5hours with no lock-ups, errors or data
corruption and the 32 copies of setiathome are still making good progress and
the IO stats are literally 100x better that I ever got with ext2!!!
Time to hand over the the benchmark guys!!!
> >Now I just get a few of these show up intermittently while running
> >on 70 fibre drives on 5 qla2200 controllers.
> That doesn't seem very healthy. Is this compiled with kgcc, 2.96 or gcc3?
> Is this on ia64 or ia32?
ia64 C1 steppings