Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*Filesystem\s+sizes\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*Filesystem\s+sizes\s*$/: 24 ]

Total 24 documents matching your query.

1. Filesystem sizes (score: 1): Author: "Orn E. Hansen" <oe.hansen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Sun, 24 Jun 2001 15:27:24 +0200; I'd like to move much of my data to a journaling file system, especially since the kernels at late af a tendancy of crashing from time to time :-) and I've seen several files "vanish" as a result. No; /archives/xfs/2001-06/msg00876.html (8,013 bytes)
2. Re: Filesystem sizes (score: 1): Author: Seth Mos <knuffie@xxxxxxxxx>; Date: Sun, 24 Jun 2001 16:08:04 +0200 (CEST); What size does du report when using it on that dir. Cheers Seth; /archives/xfs/2001-06/msg00877.html (8,682 bytes)
3. Re: Filesystem sizes (score: 1): Author: "Orn E. Hansen" <oe.hansen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Sun, 24 Jun 2001 16:32:48 +0200; sunnudagur 24. júní 2001 16:08, ţú skrifađir: The files inside the directories, have the same sizes in both cases... I took a peek at some of the directories. An example, is a file inside the graph; /archives/xfs/2001-06/msg00879.html (16,455 bytes)
4. Re: Filesystem sizes (score: 1): Author: Steve Lord <lord@xxxxxxx>; Date: Sun, 24 Jun 2001 09:38:55 -0500; How did you copy the files into XFS, are you using NFS? and which kernel version are you using? I just did some quick checks and I am not seeing similar behavior. It appears that space preallocated; /archives/xfs/2001-06/msg00880.html (9,216 bytes)
5. Re: Filesystem sizes (score: 1): Author: "Orn E. Hansen" <oe.hansen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Sun, 24 Jun 2001 22:49:33 +0200; sunnudagur 24. júní 2001 16:38, ţú skrifađir: I'm running redhat 7.1, using a vanilla kernel 2.4.3, with the 2.4.3 core and kernel xfs tarballs. XFS release 1.0. I backup the files, using 'tar -jc; /archives/xfs/2001-06/msg00887.html (9,988 bytes)
6. Re: Filesystem sizes (score: 1): Author: Seth Mos <knuffie@xxxxxxxxx>; Date: Sun, 24 Jun 2001 23:34:45 +0200; I'm running redhat 7.1, using a vanilla kernel 2.4.3, with the 2.4.3 core and kernel xfs tarballs. XFS release 1.0. I backup the files, using 'tar -jcf <tarball>.tar.bz2 <directory>' and untar them i; /archives/xfs/2001-06/msg00888.html (10,953 bytes)
7. Re: Filesystem sizes (score: 1): Author: Simon Matter <simon.matter@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2001 09:52:19 +0200; from mobile.sauter-bc.com (unknown [10.1.6.21]) by basel1.sauter-bc.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 432A357306; Mon, 25 Jun 2001 09:58:03 +0200 (CEST) Cc: oe.hansen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, Steve Lord <lord; /archives/xfs/2001-06/msg00902.html (12,309 bytes)
8. Re: Filesystem sizes (score: 1): Author: Steve Lord <lord@xxxxxxx>; Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2001 06:58:11 -0500; I would concur with Seth, please try a later kernel, the rpms he refers to should help. We did at one point see problems similar to those you describe with file sizes, but that was a long time ago, p; /archives/xfs/2001-06/msg00907.html (9,131 bytes)
9. Re: Filesystem sizes (score: 1): Author: "Orn E. Hansen" <oe.hansen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2001 16:30:28 +0200; As suggested, I checked out the swap and memory space on my system. My setup is a 700MHz cpu, 128Mb of ram and equal swap space. The 'free' command shows, that there are approximately 100Mb in use, a; /archives/xfs/2001-06/msg00912.html (10,839 bytes)
10. Re: Filesystem sizes (score: 1): Author: Steve Lord <lord@xxxxxxx>; Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2001 10:26:55 -0500; Hmm, I tried untaring the linux kernel (I am pretty sure Linus is not using xfs to create these...) the end result was as expected, the files come out the correct size, du reports sizes as expected.; /archives/xfs/2001-06/msg00915.html (11,302 bytes)
11. Re: Filesystem sizes (score: 1): Author: "Orn E. Hansen" <oe.hansen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2001 21:15:23 +0200; mánudagur 25. júní 2001 17:26, Steve Lord skrifađi: No, NFS is not active at this moment... I take this one step at a time. Ok, I did what you requested and took ls -lsR of the /usr/doc dir, in three; /archives/xfs/2001-06/msg00919.html (11,183 bytes)
12. Re: Filesystem sizes (score: 1): Author: Steve Lord <lord@xxxxxxx>; Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2001 14:54:12 -0500; Hmm, there are two things going on, one being that the size field in a directory is not getting updated when we add new entries to it. XFS allows small directories to live totally within the inode,; /archives/xfs/2001-06/msg00948.html (10,228 bytes)
13. Filesystem sizes (score: 1): Author: "Orn E. Hansen" <oe.hansen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Sun, 24 Jun 2001 15:27:24 +0200; I'd like to move much of my data to a journaling file system, especially since the kernels at late af a tendancy of crashing from time to time :-) and I've seen several files "vanish" as a result. No; /archives/xfs/2001-06/msg02046.html (8,013 bytes)
14. Re: Filesystem sizes (score: 1): Author: Seth Mos <knuffie@xxxxxxxxx>; Date: Sun, 24 Jun 2001 16:08:04 +0200 (CEST); What size does du report when using it on that dir. Cheers Seth; /archives/xfs/2001-06/msg02047.html (8,682 bytes)
15. Re: Filesystem sizes (score: 1): Author: "Orn E. Hansen" <oe.hansen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Sun, 24 Jun 2001 16:32:48 +0200; sunnudagur 24. júní 2001 16:08, ţú skrifađir: The files inside the directories, have the same sizes in both cases... I took a peek at some of the directories. An example, is a file inside the graph; /archives/xfs/2001-06/msg02049.html (16,455 bytes)
16. Re: Filesystem sizes (score: 1): Author: Steve Lord <lord@xxxxxxx>; Date: Sun, 24 Jun 2001 09:38:55 -0500; How did you copy the files into XFS, are you using NFS? and which kernel version are you using? I just did some quick checks and I am not seeing similar behavior. It appears that space preallocated; /archives/xfs/2001-06/msg02050.html (9,216 bytes)
17. Re: Filesystem sizes (score: 1): Author: "Orn E. Hansen" <oe.hansen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Sun, 24 Jun 2001 22:49:33 +0200; sunnudagur 24. júní 2001 16:38, ţú skrifađir: I'm running redhat 7.1, using a vanilla kernel 2.4.3, with the 2.4.3 core and kernel xfs tarballs. XFS release 1.0. I backup the files, using 'tar -jc; /archives/xfs/2001-06/msg02057.html (9,988 bytes)
18. Re: Filesystem sizes (score: 1): Author: Seth Mos <knuffie@xxxxxxxxx>; Date: Sun, 24 Jun 2001 23:34:45 +0200; I'm running redhat 7.1, using a vanilla kernel 2.4.3, with the 2.4.3 core and kernel xfs tarballs. XFS release 1.0. I backup the files, using 'tar -jcf <tarball>.tar.bz2 <directory>' and untar them i; /archives/xfs/2001-06/msg02058.html (10,953 bytes)
19. Re: Filesystem sizes (score: 1): Author: Simon Matter <simon.matter@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2001 09:52:19 +0200; from mobile.sauter-bc.com (unknown [10.1.6.21]) by basel1.sauter-bc.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 432A357306; Mon, 25 Jun 2001 09:58:03 +0200 (CEST) Cc: oe.hansen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, Steve Lord <lord; /archives/xfs/2001-06/msg02072.html (12,309 bytes)
20. Re: Filesystem sizes (score: 1): Author: Steve Lord <lord@xxxxxxx>; Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2001 06:58:11 -0500; I would concur with Seth, please try a later kernel, the rpms he refers to should help. We did at one point see problems similar to those you describe with file sizes, but that was a long time ago, p; /archives/xfs/2001-06/msg02077.html (9,131 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 20
Page: [1] [2]