Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[PATCH\s+00\/14\]\s+repair\s+memory\s+usage\s+reductions\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[PATCH\s+00\/14\]\s+repair\s+memory\s+usage\s+reductions\s*$/: 7 ]

Total 7 documents matching your query.

1. [PATCH 00/14] repair memory usage reductions (score: 1): Author: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Wed, 02 Sep 2009 13:55:31 -0400; This is a respin of the patches Barry Naujok wrote at SGI for reducing the memory usage in repair. I've split it up, fixed a few small bugs and added two preparatory cleanups - but all the real work; /archives/xfs/2009-09/msg00037.html (8,551 bytes)
2. Re: [PATCH 00/14] repair memory usage reductions (score: 1): Author: Geoffrey Wehrman <gwehrman@xxxxxxx>; Date: Thu, 3 Sep 2009 15:49:40 -0500; How do these changes affect xfs_repair I/O performance? Barry changes were previously withheld within SGI due to a regression in performance. -- Geoffrey Wehrman 651-683-5496 gwehrman@xxxxxxx; /archives/xfs/2009-09/msg00066.html (9,360 bytes)
3. Re: [PATCH 00/14] repair memory usage reductions (score: 1): Author: Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Fri, 4 Sep 2009 12:57:53 +1000; Christoph asked me to repeat what I said on #xfs w.r.t the regression. The repair slowdowns were a result of increased CPU usage of the btree structures used to track free space compared to manipulat; /archives/xfs/2009-09/msg00070.html (11,762 bytes)
4. Re: [PATCH 00/14] repair memory usage reductions (score: 1): Author: Geoffrey Wehrman <gwehrman@xxxxxxx>; Date: Fri, 4 Sep 2009 08:37:37 -0500; Thank you for the detailed description. All I had was a statement from January 2008, "Barry has completed the memory optimization, but initial testing shows that performance has regressed." That was; /archives/xfs/2009-09/msg00074.html (9,915 bytes)
5. Re: [PATCH 00/14] repair memory usage reductions (score: 1): Author: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Fri, 4 Sep 2009 10:51:09 -0400; In my testing I haven't seen big differences in performance, it sometimes got a bit faster and sometimes a bit slower. I will send out a more detailed performace report in a few days.; /archives/xfs/2009-09/msg00075.html (10,330 bytes)
6. Re: [PATCH 00/14] repair memory usage reductions (score: 1): Author: Michael Monnerie <michael.monnerie@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Fri, 4 Sep 2009 19:24:35 +0200; From what I've read, it should be faster on a machine with 2GB RAM and 10TB storage, while it's maybe slower on a 64GB RAM machine with a 1TB xfs storage. Given that disks grow faster than RAM sizes,; /archives/xfs/2009-09/msg00077.html (10,139 bytes)
7. Re: [PATCH 00/14] repair memory usage reductions (score: 1): Author: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Thu, 12 Nov 2009 10:58:39 -0500; The remaining patches with the updates suggested by Alex are now available in the repair-speedup-20091112 branch of the kernel.org xfsprogs-dev git repository: http://git.kernel.org/?p=fs/xfs/xfsprog; /archives/xfs/2009-11/msg00083.html (7,202 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 7
Page: [1]