Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*XFS_IOC_RESVSP64\s+versus\s+XFS_IOC_ALLOCSP64\s+with\s+multiple\s+threads\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*XFS_IOC_RESVSP64\s+versus\s+XFS_IOC_ALLOCSP64\s+with\s+multiple\s+threads\s*$/: 18 ]

Total 18 documents matching your query.

1. XFS_IOC_RESVSP64 versus XFS_IOC_ALLOCSP64 with multiple threads (score: 1): Author: Stewart Smith <stewart@xxxxxxxxx>; Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2006 12:33:22 +1100; I recently (finally) wrote my patch to use the xfsctl to get better allocation for NDB disk data files (datafiles and undofiles). patch at: http://lists.mysql.com/commits/15088 This actually ends up; /archives/xfs/2006-11/msg00050.html (10,090 bytes)
2. Re: XFS_IOC_RESVSP64 versus XFS_IOC_ALLOCSP64 with multiple threads (score: 1): Author: Stewart Smith <stewart@xxxxxxxxx>; Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2006 15:09:02 +1100; I do predict that the filestreams allocator will be useful for us (and also on my MythTV box...). The two processes write to their own directories. The structure of the "filesystem" for the process (; /archives/xfs/2006-11/msg00051.html (11,802 bytes)
3. Re: XFS_IOC_RESVSP64 versus XFS_IOC_ALLOCSP64 with multiple threads (score: 1): Author: Sam Vaughan <sjv@xxxxxxx>; Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2006 15:53:54 +1100; On 13/11/2006, at 3:09 PM, Stewart Smith wrote: On Mon, 2006-11-13 at 13:58 +1100, Sam Vaughan wrote: Are the two processes in your test writing files to the same directory as each other? If so then; /archives/xfs/2006-11/msg00052.html (17,287 bytes)
4. Re: XFS_IOC_RESVSP64 versus XFS_IOC_ALLOCSP64 with multiple threads (score: 1): Author: Stewart Smith <stewart@xxxxxxxxx>; Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2006 16:20:50 +1100; an example: /home/mysql/cluster/ndb_1_fs/datafile1.dat: EXT: FILE-OFFSET BLOCK-RANGE AG AG-OFFSET TOTAL 0: [0..63]: 32862376..32862439 8 (1405096..1405159) 64 1: [64..127]: 32875992..32876055 8 (1418; /archives/xfs/2006-11/msg00053.html (14,385 bytes)
5. Re: XFS_IOC_RESVSP64 versus XFS_IOC_ALLOCSP64 with multiple threads (score: 1): Author: Sam Vaughan <sjv@xxxxxxx>; Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2006 11:04:17 +1100; On 13/11/2006, at 4:20 PM, Stewart Smith wrote: On Mon, 2006-11-13 at 15:53 +1100, Sam Vaughan wrote: Just to be clear, are we talking about intra-file fragmentation, i.e. file data laid out disconti; /archives/xfs/2006-11/msg00062.html (16,826 bytes)
6. Re: XFS_IOC_RESVSP64 versus XFS_IOC_ALLOCSP64 with multiple threads (score: 1): Author: Sam Vaughan <sjv@xxxxxxx>; Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2006 11:31:15 +1100; On 14/11/2006, at 11:25 AM, Chris Wedgwood wrote: On Tue, Nov 14, 2006 at 11:04:17AM +1100, Sam Vaughan wrote: Those extents are curiously uniform, all 32kB in size. O_SYNC writes? I'm assuming from; /archives/xfs/2006-11/msg00063.html (10,456 bytes)
7. Re: XFS_IOC_RESVSP64 versus XFS_IOC_ALLOCSP64 with multiple threads (score: 1): Author: Sam Vaughan <sjv@xxxxxxx>; Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2006 11:37:49 +1100; /archives/xfs/2006-11/msg00064.html (9,776 bytes)
8. Re: XFS_IOC_RESVSP64 versus XFS_IOC_ALLOCSP64 with multiple threads (score: 1): Author: Chris Wedgwood <cw@xxxxxxxx>; Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2006 16:25:36 -0800; /archives/xfs/2006-11/msg00065.html (9,349 bytes)
9. Re: XFS_IOC_RESVSP64 versus XFS_IOC_ALLOCSP64 with multiple threads (score: 1): Author: Stewart Smith <stewart@xxxxxxxxx>; Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2006 05:55:01 +0000; I think this is typically what the QA guys do (to help keep their sanity if anything). Perhaps we should have this in our "best practice" documentation as well... That works fine on my file systems (; /archives/xfs/2006-11/msg00156.html (14,016 bytes)
10. XFS_IOC_RESVSP64 versus XFS_IOC_ALLOCSP64 with multiple threads (score: 1): Author: >; Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2006 12:33:22 +1100; I recently (finally) wrote my patch to use the xfsctl to get better allocation for NDB disk data files (datafiles and undofiles). patch at: http://lists.mysql.com/commits/15088 This actually ends up; /archives/xfs/2006-11/msg00258.html (10,090 bytes)
11. Re: XFS_IOC_RESVSP64 versus XFS_IOC_ALLOCSP64 with multiple threads (score: 1): Author: >; Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2006 15:09:02 +1100; I do predict that the filestreams allocator will be useful for us (and also on my MythTV box...). The two processes write to their own directories. The structure of the "filesystem" for the process (; /archives/xfs/2006-11/msg00259.html (11,802 bytes)
12. Re: XFS_IOC_RESVSP64 versus XFS_IOC_ALLOCSP64 with multiple threads (score: 1): Author: >; Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2006 15:53:54 +1100; On 13/11/2006, at 3:09 PM, Stewart Smith wrote: On Mon, 2006-11-13 at 13:58 +1100, Sam Vaughan wrote: Are the two processes in your test writing files to the same directory as each other? If so then; /archives/xfs/2006-11/msg00260.html (17,287 bytes)
13. Re: XFS_IOC_RESVSP64 versus XFS_IOC_ALLOCSP64 with multiple threads (score: 1): Author: >; Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2006 16:20:50 +1100; an example: /home/mysql/cluster/ndb_1_fs/datafile1.dat: EXT: FILE-OFFSET BLOCK-RANGE AG AG-OFFSET TOTAL 0: [0..63]: 32862376..32862439 8 (1405096..1405159) 64 1: [64..127]: 32875992..32876055 8 (1418; /archives/xfs/2006-11/msg00261.html (14,385 bytes)
14. Re: XFS_IOC_RESVSP64 versus XFS_IOC_ALLOCSP64 with multiple threads (score: 1): Author: >; Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2006 11:04:17 +1100; On 13/11/2006, at 4:20 PM, Stewart Smith wrote: On Mon, 2006-11-13 at 15:53 +1100, Sam Vaughan wrote: Just to be clear, are we talking about intra-file fragmentation, i.e. file data laid out disconti; /archives/xfs/2006-11/msg00270.html (16,826 bytes)
15. Re: XFS_IOC_RESVSP64 versus XFS_IOC_ALLOCSP64 with multiple threads (score: 1): Author: >; Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2006 11:31:15 +1100; On 14/11/2006, at 11:25 AM, Chris Wedgwood wrote: On Tue, Nov 14, 2006 at 11:04:17AM +1100, Sam Vaughan wrote: Those extents are curiously uniform, all 32kB in size. O_SYNC writes? I'm assuming from; /archives/xfs/2006-11/msg00271.html (10,456 bytes)
16. Re: XFS_IOC_RESVSP64 versus XFS_IOC_ALLOCSP64 with multiple threads (score: 1): Author: >; Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2006 11:37:49 +1100; /archives/xfs/2006-11/msg00272.html (9,776 bytes)
17. Re: XFS_IOC_RESVSP64 versus XFS_IOC_ALLOCSP64 with multiple threads (score: 1): Author: >; Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2006 16:25:36 -0800; /archives/xfs/2006-11/msg00273.html (9,349 bytes)
18. Re: XFS_IOC_RESVSP64 versus XFS_IOC_ALLOCSP64 with multiple threads (score: 1): Author: >; Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2006 05:55:01 +0000; I think this is typically what the QA guys do (to help keep their sanity if anything). Perhaps we should have this in our "best practice" documentation as well... That works fine on my file systems (; /archives/xfs/2006-11/msg00364.html (14,016 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 18
Page: [1]