Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*fc3\s+and\s+stacks\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*fc3\s+and\s+stacks\s*$/: 42 ]

Total 42 documents matching your query.

1. fc3 and stacks (score: 1): Author: Robin Humble <rjh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2005 18:20:36 -0500; Under what conditions should we be worried about XFS with a kernel compiled with 4k stacks? As we are lazy, we would prefer to run a stock fc3 kernel on dual Xeon 32bit with 3ware hardware SATA RAID; /archives/xfs/2005-03/msg00045.html (7,971 bytes)
2. Re: fc3 and stacks (score: 1): Author: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxx>; Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2005 11:29:45 -0600; Under what conditions should we be worried about XFS with a kernel compiled with 4k stacks? As we are lazy, we would prefer to run a stock fc3 kernel on dual Xeon 32bit with 3ware hardware SATA RAID; /archives/xfs/2005-03/msg00051.html (9,912 bytes)
3. Re: fc3 and stacks (score: 1): Author: Stephen Lord <lord@xxxxxxx>; Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2005 15:53:27 -0600; Eric Sandeen wrote: There are still a few large stack users in xfs even when it's used by itself - one that comes to mind is code that runs when you use xfs_fsr (hm, I really must check in my fix for; /archives/xfs/2005-03/msg00053.html (10,595 bytes)
4. Re: fc3 and stacks (score: 1): Author: Stephen Lord <lord@xxxxxxx>; Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2005 16:15:22 -0600; Stephen Lord wrote: AS 4.0 uses the 8K stack model, but yes, their filesystem selection seems a little limited. Suse is actually looking pretty good right now, and I have an ubuntu install running on; /archives/xfs/2005-03/msg00054.html (8,995 bytes)
5. Re: fc3 and stacks (score: 1): Author: Robin Humble <rjh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2005 17:52:30 -0500; thanks for the advice. I've been using XFS on a home workstation with a standard fc3 kernel for several months now with no problems, so under some "normal" workloads it's fine. Now we want to use XFS; /archives/xfs/2005-03/msg00055.html (9,099 bytes)
6. Re: fc3 and stacks (score: 1): Author: Lonni J Friedman <netllama@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2005 17:22:01 -0500 (EST); FWIW, i've been running FC3 on three production servers (perhaps foolishly so based on the comments above) for about 6 months now withou any problems. One is running BIND as its only major service (n; /archives/xfs/2005-03/msg00057.html (10,463 bytes)
7. Re: fc3 and stacks (score: 1): Author: Chris Wedgwood <cw@xxxxxxxx>; Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2005 14:57:28 -0800; Light load without anything fancy and most people will be perfectly fine. I suspect given a little load, NFS, loop, MD, DM or LVM it probably wouldn't be too hard to break; certainly I can break thin; /archives/xfs/2005-03/msg00058.html (9,525 bytes)
8. Re: fc3 and stacks (score: 1): Author: Russell Cattelan <cattelan@xxxxxxx>; Date: Sun, 13 Mar 2005 19:29:39 -0600; Under what conditions should we be worried about XFS with a kernel compiled with 4k stacks? XFS is probably fine but I wouldn't try to stack on top a volume manager. The last time XFS on a md raid 5; /archives/xfs/2005-03/msg00062.html (10,836 bytes)
9. Re: fc3 and stacks (score: 1): Author: Lonni J Friedman <netllama@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Sun, 13 Mar 2005 20:10:52 -0500 (EST); Hrmm, that's weird, cause i've never had any problems like that under FC2 or FC3. -- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Lonni J Friedman netllama@xxxxxxxxxxxxx Lla; /archives/xfs/2005-03/msg00063.html (9,334 bytes)
10. on? (score: 1): Author: xxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2005 10:13:35 -0800; This is a bit disturbing. As much as it would be nice (though painful) to switch to Suse or something else, the RedHat line (FC3, RHEL3/4) is what the big vendors wish to support in movie production.; /archives/xfs/2005-03/msg00070.html (12,654 bytes)
11. rition? (score: 1): Author: xxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2005 14:09:15 -0500; Indeed, the lack of 8k stacks and XFS in RHEL AS4 is a pain. Some ways forward: - convince RedHat to put 8k stacks (or at least the option for it) and XFS into AS4. - try to make XFS play nicer with; /archives/xfs/2005-03/msg00072.html (10,384 bytes)
12. xfs partrition? (score: 1): Author: r@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2005 11:23:10 -0800; Robin Humble wrote: On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 10:13:35AM -0800, Christian Rice wrote: As much as it would be nice (though painful) to switch to Suse or something else, the RedHat line (FC3, RHEL3/4) is; /archives/xfs/2005-03/msg00074.html (11,685 bytes)
13. fc3 and stacks (score: 1): Author: xian@xxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2005 14:04:36 -0500 (EST); My experience has been that unless you're already post-sales, and have alot more license revenue to dangle in front of them, they won't be listening. I suppose it doesn't hurt to try though. -- ~~~~~; /archives/xfs/2005-03/msg00075.html (10,128 bytes)
14. fc3 and stacks (score: 1): Author: ma@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2005 20:46:24 +0100; All x86-64 linux kernels have 6-8k stacks + interrupt stacks and I am not aware of anybody planning to change this. XFS works fine. -Andi; /archives/xfs/2005-03/msg00076.html (8,572 bytes)
15. back my xfs partrition? (score: 1): Author: <as@xxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2005 14:46:28 -0600; Robin Humble wrote: Some ways forward: - convince RedHat to put 8k stacks (or at least the option for it) and XFS into AS4. FWIW, I try to steer the conversation away from "xfs is broken with 4k stac; /archives/xfs/2005-03/msg00078.html (12,064 bytes)
16. ion? (score: 1): Author: <sandeen@xxxxxxx>; Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2005 15:20:21 -0500 (EST); That's not the case across the board. I'm running a stock kernel.org 2.6 kernel on RHEL3 (for almost a year now) and haven't had any problems. Perhaps i've not hit whatever issue you've experienced?; /archives/xfs/2005-03/msg00079.html (11,858 bytes)
17. t -o sync (XFS, 2.6.11) (score: 1): Author: <nathans@xxxxxxx>; Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2005 23:46:06 -0500; good plan. I haven't found any problems running AS4 with generic 2.6 kernel.org kernels. Or generic 2.4 or 2.6 kernels with fc2 or fc3 either (+/- using dev instead of udev with 2.4 kernels and fc3/a; /archives/xfs/2005-03/msg00084.html (11,528 bytes)
18. S file corruption bug ? (score: 1): Author: jforis@xxxxxxxxx>; Date: Sun, 20 Mar 2005 16:25:09 -0500; I hammered a standard fc3 kernel (4k stacks) and couldn't break it. I ran 4 simultaneous bonnie++'s locally, and 8 more over NFS using two gigabit ethernet links. No software raid, no lvm, no quotas,; /archives/xfs/2005-03/msg00105.html (9,489 bytes)
19. ix dirsync mount option (score: 1): Author: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2005 07:40:53 -0500 (EST); Hrm. I had exactly the opposite experience. My testbed was far older (and simpler) -- dual PIII 450, 384MB RAM, AIC-7890 controller and 2 SCSI disks (not in any sort of RAID or anything). I was runni; /archives/xfs/2005-03/msg00108.html (10,209 bytes)
20. up thunderbird settings (score: 1): Author: aemon@xxxxxxxxxxx; Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2005 17:42:34 -0500; ... Hmmm. interesting. <insert another couple of days of testing> I can't reliably produce stack overflows. I once crashed the machine (no logs produced, could ping it but nothing else) with a 4k sta; /archives/xfs/2005-03/msg00124.html (10,772 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 20
Page: [1] [2] [3]