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

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*XFS\s+Writes\:\s+IOLOCK_EXCL\s*$/: 16 ]

Total 16 documents matching your query.

1. XFS Writes: IOLOCK_EXCL (score: 1): Author:; Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2004 12:20:22 -0500; What I've been trying to do is squeeze some more write performance out of my system. (Dual Pentium Xeon processors, 1GB ram, software RAID, 2.4.20 kernel patched with XFS 1.3.1) I've ended up fiddli; /archives/xfs/2004-02/msg00272.html (9,406 bytes)
2. Re: XFS Writes: IOLOCK_EXCL (score: 1): Author:; Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2004 17:29:07 +1100; hi there. Good stuff. Can you describe your workload there a bit more? Do you have multiple writers to the same file (from different NFS clients?)? Readers too? thanks. By "cleanup" I guess you mean; /archives/xfs/2004-02/msg00280.html (11,442 bytes)
3. XFS Writes: IOLOCK_EXCL (score: 1): Author:; Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2004 10:29:40 -0500; What I've been trying to do is squeeze some more write performance out of my system. (Dual Pentium Xeon processors, 1GB ram, software RAID, 2.4.20 kernel patched with XFS 1.3.1) I've ended up fiddli; /archives/xfs/2004-02/msg00286.html (7,880 bytes)
4. Re: XFS Writes: IOLOCK_EXCL (score: 1): Author:; Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2004 15:06:52 +1100; Thanks Steve. After an audit, this seems to be valid for both 2.4 and 2.6. Mmmm? seems to me that i_sem is also held for nfs commit, both in 2.4 and 2.6 (nfsd_commit -> nfsd_sync -> down(i_sem) -> nf; /archives/xfs/2004-02/msg00293.html (10,462 bytes)
5. Re: XFS Writes: IOLOCK_EXCL (score: 1): Author:; Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2004 07:58:24 -0600; Nathan Scott wrote: On Tue, Feb 24, 2004 at 12:20:22PM -0500, Alex Wun wrote: Hi. hi there. What I've been trying to do is squeeze some more write performance out of my system. Good stuff. I've ended; /archives/xfs/2004-02/msg00294.html (19,468 bytes)
6. Re: XFS Writes: IOLOCK_EXCL (score: 1): Author:; Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2004 07:27:02 -0600; Nathan Scott wrote: I think its always valid to do this (after auditing the callers), but doesn't seem to do "general speedup" - the "usual suspects" benchmarks don't show any improvements anyway. Al; /archives/xfs/2004-02/msg00296.html (9,697 bytes)
7. Re: XFS Writes: IOLOCK_EXCL (score: 1): Author:; Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2004 10:09:57 -0500; I'm just forwarding everything to you. They're kind of on the wrong track right now. Again. Sorry for the mess I've created. Alex W.; /archives/xfs/2004-02/msg00299.html (11,185 bytes)
8. Re: XFS Writes: IOLOCK_EXCL (score: 1): Author:; Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2004 14:32:52 -0500; Sorry that I haven't gotten back to you in response to your question about the workload. Prior to your suggestion I had only tested a single application running on a single client over synchronous NF; /archives/xfs/2004-02/msg00303.html (11,746 bytes)
9. XFS Writes: IOLOCK_EXCL (score: 1): Author: >; Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2004 12:20:22 -0500; disk and/; /archives/xfs/2004-02/msg00607.html (9,406 bytes)
10. Re: XFS Writes: IOLOCK_EXCL (score: 1): Author: >; Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2004 17:29:07 +1100; /platform; /archives/xfs/2004-02/msg00615.html (11,442 bytes)
11. XFS Writes: IOLOCK_EXCL (score: 1): Author: >; Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2004 10:29:40 -0500; the exte; /archives/xfs/2004-02/msg00621.html (7,880 bytes)
12. Re: XFS Writes: IOLOCK_EXCL (score: 1): Author: >; Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2004 15:06:52 +1100; em! -eric; /archives/xfs/2004-02/msg00628.html (10,462 bytes)
13. Re: XFS Writes: IOLOCK_EXCL (score: 1): Author: >; Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2004 07:58:24 -0600; em) -> nf; /archives/xfs/2004-02/msg00629.html (19,468 bytes)
14. Re: XFS Writes: IOLOCK_EXCL (score: 1): Author: >; Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2004 07:27:02 -0600; ump/conte; /archives/xfs/2004-02/msg00631.html (9,697 bytes)
15. Re: XFS Writes: IOLOCK_EXCL (score: 1): Author: >; Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2004 10:09:57 -0500; tch) to s; /archives/xfs/2004-02/msg00634.html (11,185 bytes)
16. Re: XFS Writes: IOLOCK_EXCL (score: 1): Author: >; Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2004 14:32:52 -0500; d0 device; /archives/xfs/2004-02/msg00638.html (11,746 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 16
Page: [1]