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

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*synchronization\s+of\s+XFS\s*$/: 78 ]

Total 78 documents matching your query.

61. Re: synchronization of XFS (score: 1): Author: >; Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2004 14:00:21 +0100; Grub does it as a workaround. Or.. Should. Happens with current tree I can tell you that me and .. Steve I think discussed it on IRC a while back and he looked into the POSIX spec and according to P; /archives/xfs/2004-03/msg00686.html (10,759 bytes)
62. Re: synchronization of XFS (score: 1): Author: >; Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2004 05:22:00 -0800; It's stupid. How does sync() multiple times in secession work better than once? Well, not to split hair, sync() means all data needs to hit the disk. Accessing it via a bock device for a mounted file; /archives/xfs/2004-03/msg00687.html (10,617 bytes)
63. Re: synchronization of XFS (score: 1): Author: >; Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2004 14:26:59 +0100; I never claimed it was smart :) Yup. It does, but you can't unmount and then mount the filesystem if you don't have a seperate /boot partition. Yup. I'd need to check up if O_DIRECT is supported in; /archives/xfs/2004-03/msg00688.html (11,554 bytes)
64. Re: synchronization of XFS (score: 1): Author: >; Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2004 07:41:46 -0600; sync means the filesystem will look the same after a crash, it does not mean all the data has to hit the disk. In the case of XFS it does not really mean this. Sync will make sure that the journal is; /archives/xfs/2004-03/msg00689.html (11,546 bytes)
65. Re: synchronization of XFS (score: 1): Author: >; Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2004 06:07:23 -0800; fsync()/sync() should mean all dirty DATA blocks and METADATA blocks are flushed to the backing store. Anything less than this is a bug. SuS requires that sync() schedule writes to the file system bu; /archives/xfs/2004-03/msg00690.html (11,884 bytes)
66. Re: synchronization of XFS (score: 1): Author: >; Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2004 14:45:19 +0000; Depends on how you define backing store. Read again what Steve wrote. All metadata is in the log, so it's not lost on a crash. It's inplace, though, so unless grub relays the log in memory somewhere; /archives/xfs/2004-03/msg00691.html (11,812 bytes)
67. Re: synchronization of XFS (score: 1): Author: >; Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2004 16:36:52 -0600; And thinking about it some more, having grub make the filesystem remount readonly would force everything down to disk unlike just doing a sync call. Steve; /archives/xfs/2004-03/msg00705.html (11,363 bytes)
68. Re: synchronization of XFS (score: 1): Author: >; Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2004 23:41:54 +0100; Tried and failed :( Tried that before but it didn't help unfortunately. // Stefan; /archives/xfs/2004-03/msg00706.html (11,754 bytes)
69. Re: synchronization of XFS (score: 1): Author: >; Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2004 16:46:06 -0600; So what exactly is the sequence of events here, some files are created in the boot directory via the kernel, then grub wants to look at them via the block device api and its emulation of the filesyst; /archives/xfs/2004-03/msg00707.html (12,308 bytes)
70. Re: synchronization of XFS (score: 1): Author: >; Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2004 23:49:22 +0100; Hi Steve. Yup. That's what's happening. It first does one run with --just-copy where it writes the files using the filesystem then reads the same files using the blockdevice and it's own filesystem c; /archives/xfs/2004-03/msg00708.html (12,408 bytes)
71. Re: synchronization of XFS (score: 1): Author: >; Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2004 17:02:35 -0600; And I presume the files are missing? The bizzare part of this is that if you read the via the block device interface, you are looking at the same in memory pages which xfs uses for the metadata cache; /archives/xfs/2004-03/msg00709.html (11,644 bytes)
72. Re: synchronization of XFS (score: 1): Author: >; Date: Fri, 26 Mar 2004 00:06:06 +0100; Hi Steve. Alright. I'll try that on my DVD in a few hours and get back to you. Just to verify to be accurate : That /proc entry exists regardless of if xfs is statically compiled or as a module, corr; /archives/xfs/2004-03/msg00710.html (12,135 bytes)
73. Re: synchronization of XFS (score: 1): Author: >; Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2004 17:10:33 -0600; It will exist if you have an xfs filesystem and /proc mounted. Loading an xfs module will create it. Looks like both 2.4 and 2.6 use this now. Steve; /archives/xfs/2004-03/msg00711.html (12,539 bytes)
74. Re: synchronization of XFS (score: 1): Author: x; Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2004 21:52:20 -0800; What about freeze/unfreeze instead? --cw; /archives/xfs/2004-03/msg00713.html (9,739 bytes)
75. Re: synchronization of XFS (score: 1): Author: >; Date: Mon, 29 Mar 2004 14:31:02 +0900; How was this testing result? I suppose setting sync_interval to 1000 and sleeping 2 seconds after sync is basically same as sleeping 4 seconds or more with the default sync_interval value (3000?). S; /archives/xfs/2004-03/msg00748.html (11,445 bytes)
76. Re: synchronization of XFS (score: 1): Author: >; Date: Mon, 29 Mar 2004 07:22:09 -0600; Except the default setting is 30000 or 30 seconds. I have not heard back from Stefan. Steve; /archives/xfs/2004-03/msg00752.html (10,902 bytes)
77. Re: synchronization of XFS (score: 1): Author: >; Date: Mon, 29 Mar 2004 17:49:07 +0200; Been a bit busy and the one I built had a *Groan* typo ... Rebuilding it now... // Stefan; /archives/xfs/2004-03/msg00756.html (11,214 bytes)
78. Re: synchronization of XFS (score: 1): Author: >; Date: Tue, 30 Mar 2004 01:50:18 +0200; Oh yes. The mobo that I build the distro on just fried so there will be more delays. Sorry guys // Stefan; /archives/xfs/2004-03/msg00765.html (11,595 bytes)

Current List: 61 - 78
Page: [1] [2] [3] [4]