Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*4k\s+stacks\s+on\s+32\-bit\,\s+8k\s+stacks\s+on\s+64\-bit\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*4k\s+stacks\s+on\s+32\-bit\,\s+8k\s+stacks\s+on\s+64\-bit\s*$/: 15 ]

Total 15 documents matching your query.

1. 4k stacks on 32-bit, 8k stacks on 64-bit (score: 1): Author: xxxx>; Date: Wed, 25 May 2005 22:41:26 -0700; How is xfs doing these days with 4k stacks on x86 systems, or 8k stacks on I'm running RHEL 4, with xfs enabled in a kernel directly derived from the RHEL 4 kernel. I'm on x86_64, and until today, I; /archives/xfs/2005-05/msg00172.html (7,635 bytes)
2. Re: 4k stacks on 32-bit, 8k stacks on 64-bit (score: 1): Author: xxxx>; Date: Thu, 26 May 2005 12:34:26 -0500; David Kewley wrote: How is xfs doing these days with 4k stacks on x86 systems, or 8k stacks on x86_64? The former may be dicey in some situations (stacking - nfs, volume managers, etc), I'd expect th; /archives/xfs/2005-05/msg00174.html (9,332 bytes)
3. Re: 4k stacks on 32-bit, 8k stacks on 64-bit (score: 1): Author: xxxx>; Date: Thu, 26 May 2005 15:18:56 -0700; Thanks Eric. Unfortunately, my typical application has a stack like this: 3w-9xxx (JBOD since hw RAID5 is extremely slow in my hands) md (RAID 6) lvm2 xfs nfs What's your educated guess about the lik; /archives/xfs/2005-05/msg00175.html (8,169 bytes)
4. Re: 4k stacks on 32-bit, 8k stacks on 64-bit (score: 1): Author: xxxx>; Date: Thu, 26 May 2005 23:23:28 -0500; David Kewley wrote: On Thursday 26 May 2005 10:34, Eric Sandeen wrote: If you just run local xfs without stacking other drivers above/below it in the IO chain, you'll be less likely to hit a problem.; /archives/xfs/2005-05/msg00176.html (8,828 bytes)
5. Re: 4k stacks on 32-bit, 8k stacks on 64-bit (score: 1): Author: xxxx>; Date: Thu, 26 May 2005 21:51:39 -0700; Eric Sandeen wrote on Thursday 26 May 2005 21:23: I'd love to test it thoroughly, but my customers want this NOW, and I'm not willing to take the risk with their data. :/ So I'm going with the RHEL4; /archives/xfs/2005-05/msg00177.html (9,237 bytes)
6. 4k stacks on 32-bit, 8k stacks on 64-bit (score: 1): Author: gc@xxxxxxx>; Date: Wed, 25 May 2005 22:41:26 -0700; How is xfs doing these days with 4k stacks on x86 systems, or 8k stacks on I'm running RHEL 4, with xfs enabled in a kernel directly derived from the RHEL 4 kernel. I'm on x86_64, and until today, I; /archives/xfs/2005-05/msg00373.html (7,635 bytes)
7. Re: 4k stacks on 32-bit, 8k stacks on 64-bit (score: 1): Author: @xxxxxxxxx>; Date: Thu, 26 May 2005 12:34:26 -0500; David Kewley wrote: How is xfs doing these days with 4k stacks on x86 systems, or 8k stacks on x86_64? The former may be dicey in some situations (stacking - nfs, volume managers, etc), I'd expect th; /archives/xfs/2005-05/msg00375.html (9,332 bytes)
8. Re: 4k stacks on 32-bit, 8k stacks on 64-bit (score: 1): Author: en@xxxxxxx>; Date: Thu, 26 May 2005 15:18:56 -0700; Thanks Eric. Unfortunately, my typical application has a stack like this: 3w-9xxx (JBOD since hw RAID5 is extremely slow in my hands) md (RAID 6) lvm2 xfs nfs What's your educated guess about the lik; /archives/xfs/2005-05/msg00376.html (8,169 bytes)
9. Re: 4k stacks on 32-bit, 8k stacks on 64-bit (score: 1): Author: xxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Thu, 26 May 2005 23:23:28 -0500; David Kewley wrote: On Thursday 26 May 2005 10:34, Eric Sandeen wrote: If you just run local xfs without stacking other drivers above/below it in the IO chain, you'll be less likely to hit a problem.; /archives/xfs/2005-05/msg00377.html (8,828 bytes)
10. Re: 4k stacks on 32-bit, 8k stacks on 64-bit (score: 1): Author: en@xxxxxxx>; Date: Thu, 26 May 2005 21:51:39 -0700; Eric Sandeen wrote on Thursday 26 May 2005 21:23: I'd love to test it thoroughly, but my customers want this NOW, and I'm not willing to take the risk with their data. :/ So I'm going with the RHEL4; /archives/xfs/2005-05/msg00378.html (9,237 bytes)
11. 4k stacks on 32-bit, 8k stacks on 64-bit (score: 1): Author: David Kewley <kewley@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Wed, 25 May 2005 22:41:26 -0700; How is xfs doing these days with 4k stacks on x86 systems, or 8k stacks on x86_64? I'm running RHEL 4, with xfs enabled in a kernel directly derived from the RHEL 4 kernel. I'm on x86_64, and until t; /archives/xfs/2005-05/msg00574.html (7,635 bytes)
12. Re: 4k stacks on 32-bit, 8k stacks on 64-bit (score: 1): Author: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxx>; Date: Thu, 26 May 2005 12:34:26 -0500; The former may be dicey in some situations (stacking - nfs, volume managers, etc), I'd expect the latter to be OK. I'm running RHEL 4, with xfs enabled in a kernel directly derived from the RHEL 4 ke; /archives/xfs/2005-05/msg00576.html (9,618 bytes)
13. Re: 4k stacks on 32-bit, 8k stacks on 64-bit (score: 1): Author: David Kewley <kewley@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Thu, 26 May 2005 15:18:56 -0700; Thanks Eric. Unfortunately, my typical application has a stack like this: 3w-9xxx (JBOD since hw RAID5 is extremely slow in my hands) md (RAID 6) lvm2 xfs nfs What's your educated guess about the lik; /archives/xfs/2005-05/msg00577.html (8,250 bytes)
14. Re: 4k stacks on 32-bit, 8k stacks on 64-bit (score: 1): Author: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxx>; Date: Thu, 26 May 2005 23:23:28 -0500; If you just run local xfs without stacking other drivers above/below it in the IO chain, you'll be less likely to hit a problem. Thanks Eric. Unfortunately, my typical application has a stack like t; /archives/xfs/2005-05/msg00578.html (8,932 bytes)
15. Re: 4k stacks on 32-bit, 8k stacks on 64-bit (score: 1): Author: David Kewley <kewley@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Thu, 26 May 2005 21:51:39 -0700; Eric Sandeen wrote on Thursday 26 May 2005 21:23: I'd love to test it thoroughly, but my customers want this NOW, and I'm not willing to take the risk with their data. :/ So I'm going with the RHEL4; /archives/xfs/2005-05/msg00579.html (9,347 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 15
Page: [1]