Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*Good\,\s+recent\s+FS\s+comparison\?\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*Good\,\s+recent\s+FS\s+comparison\?\s*$/: 16 ]

Total 16 documents matching your query.

1. Re: Good, recent FS comparison? (score: 1): Author: Al Boldi <a1426z@xxxxxxxxx>; Date: Sat, 17 Sep 2005 00:17:08 +0300; Don't touch anything that doesn't do ordered-mode journaling, especially if you use raid, unless your data-consistency requirements don't require this. XFS is best, but does not support ordered-mode.; /archives/xfs/2005-09/msg00120.html (9,003 bytes)
2. Re: Good, recent FS comparison? (score: 1): Author: Tyler <pml@xxxxxxxx>; Date: Sun, 18 Sep 2005 02:15:16 -0700; Al Boldi wrote: Tyler wrote: Ewan Grantham wrote: I've just setup a nice, 6-disk, USB-2 300 Gig/disk array, and was prepared to follow my normal pattern of installing ext3 as the filesystem. However,; /archives/xfs/2005-09/msg00121.html (10,409 bytes)
3. Re: Good, recent FS comparison? (score: 1): Author: "Raz Ben-Jehuda(caro)" <raziebe@xxxxxxxxx>; Date: Sun, 18 Sep 2005 14:29:49 +0300; what is ordered mode that xfs doesn't support ? -- Raz; /archives/xfs/2005-09/msg00122.html (11,861 bytes)
4. Re: Good, recent FS comparison? (score: 1): Author: Matt Stegman <matts@xxxxxxx>; Date: Sun, 18 Sep 2005 11:34:02 -0500 (CDT); This has been discussed on the mailing list before. Quick rundown: "Ordered mode" means that a file's metadata isn't written until after the file's data. On XFS, which doesn't use ordered mode, under; /archives/xfs/2005-09/msg00123.html (9,215 bytes)
5. Re: Good, recent FS comparison? (score: 1): Author: "George N. White III" <aa056@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2005 18:00:37 -0300 (ADT); On Sun, 18 Sep 2005, Matt Stegman wrote: This has been discussed on the mailing list before. Quick rundown: "Ordered mode" means that a file's metadata isn't written until after the file's data. On X; /archives/xfs/2005-09/msg00138.html (10,816 bytes)
6. Re: Good, recent FS comparison? (score: 1): Author: Jamie Lokier <jamie@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2005 16:37:03 +0100; If only. Recently I had a system come up after a power cycle with a directory where reading any file in that directory gives an I/O error. The disk is fine, and it's using ext3 in ordered mode, with; /archives/xfs/2005-09/msg00145.html (8,533 bytes)
7. Re: Good, recent FS comparison? (score: 1): Author: Al Boldi <a1426z@xxxxxxxxx>; Date: Thu, 22 Sep 2005 00:34:42 +0300; 2.4 or 2.6? In 2.4 try a reboot and force an fsck before mounting. -- Al; /archives/xfs/2005-09/msg00146.html (8,624 bytes)
8. Re: Good, recent FS comparison? (score: 1): Author: Jamie Lokier <jamie@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Thu, 22 Sep 2005 13:14:23 +0100; 2.4.26, uclinux - it's an embedded device. Doing an fsck before mounting would be an unacceptable boot-time delay. Why do you suggest that, specifically for 2.4? Is there a known problem with 2.4 and; /archives/xfs/2005-09/msg00152.html (9,135 bytes)
9. Re: Good, recent FS comparison? (score: 1): Author: Al Boldi <a1426z@xxxxxxxxx>; Date: Sat, 17 Sep 2005 00:17:08 +0300; Don't touch anything that doesn't do ordered-mode journaling, especially if you use raid, unless your data-consistency requirements don't require this. XFS is best, but does not support ordered-mode.; /archives/xfs/2005-09/msg00335.html (9,003 bytes)
10. Re: Good, recent FS comparison? (score: 1): Author: Tyler <pml@xxxxxxxx>; Date: Sun, 18 Sep 2005 02:15:16 -0700; Al Boldi wrote: Tyler wrote: Ewan Grantham wrote: I've just setup a nice, 6-disk, USB-2 300 Gig/disk array, and was prepared to follow my normal pattern of installing ext3 as the filesystem. However,; /archives/xfs/2005-09/msg00336.html (10,409 bytes)
11. Re: Good, recent FS comparison? (score: 1): Author: "Raz Ben-Jehuda(caro)" <raziebe@xxxxxxxxx>; Date: Sun, 18 Sep 2005 14:29:49 +0300; what is ordered mode that xfs doesn't support ? -- Raz; /archives/xfs/2005-09/msg00337.html (11,861 bytes)
12. Re: Good, recent FS comparison? (score: 1): Author: Matt Stegman <matts@xxxxxxx>; Date: Sun, 18 Sep 2005 11:34:02 -0500 (CDT); This has been discussed on the mailing list before. Quick rundown: "Ordered mode" means that a file's metadata isn't written until after the file's data. On XFS, which doesn't use ordered mode, under; /archives/xfs/2005-09/msg00338.html (9,215 bytes)
13. Re: Good, recent FS comparison? (score: 1): Author: "George N. White III" <aa056@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2005 18:00:37 -0300 (ADT); On Sun, 18 Sep 2005, Matt Stegman wrote: This has been discussed on the mailing list before. Quick rundown: "Ordered mode" means that a file's metadata isn't written until after the file's data. On X; /archives/xfs/2005-09/msg00353.html (10,816 bytes)
14. Re: Good, recent FS comparison? (score: 1): Author: Jamie Lokier <jamie@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2005 16:37:03 +0100; If only. Recently I had a system come up after a power cycle with a directory where reading any file in that directory gives an I/O error. The disk is fine, and it's using ext3 in ordered mode, with; /archives/xfs/2005-09/msg00360.html (8,533 bytes)
15. Re: Good, recent FS comparison? (score: 1): Author: Al Boldi <a1426z@xxxxxxxxx>; Date: Thu, 22 Sep 2005 00:34:42 +0300; 2.4 or 2.6? In 2.4 try a reboot and force an fsck before mounting. -- Al; /archives/xfs/2005-09/msg00361.html (8,624 bytes)
16. Re: Good, recent FS comparison? (score: 1): Author: Jamie Lokier <jamie@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Thu, 22 Sep 2005 13:14:23 +0100; 2.4.26, uclinux - it's an embedded device. Doing an fsck before mounting would be an unacceptable boot-time delay. Why do you suggest that, specifically for 2.4? Is there a known problem with 2.4 and; /archives/xfs/2005-09/msg00367.html (9,135 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 16
Page: [1]