search for: 100gib

There was a similar thread about which is the best FS for Centos. I'm using ext3, and wondered if XFS would be more 'data safe' than ext3. I had a 100GiB ext3 partition, and it took up 1.75GiB for FS administration purposes. I reformatted it to XFS, and it only used 50.8MB! I now have a fresh new drive to install my root Centos system onto, and wondered about creating the partitions as XFS? What about the XFS admin tools - do these get install...

The btrfs-progs tools changed the output: - 100GiB instead of 100GB - The number of spaces was changed Signed-off-by: Stefan Behrens <sbehrens@giantdisaster.de> --- common/filter | 2 +- common/filter.btrfs | 3 ++- tests/btrfs/006 | 6 +++--- tests/btrfs/006.out | 36 ++++++++++++++++++------------------ 4 files changed, 24 in...

...t; On Thu, Jun 11, 2020 at 5:22 PM Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk >> <konrad.wilk at oracle.com> wrote: >>> On Thu, Jun 11, 2020 at 07:34:19AM -0400, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: >>>> As testing shows no performance change, switch to that now. >>> What kind of testing? 100GiB? Low latency? >>> >> Hi Konrad. >> >> I tested this version of the patch: >> https://lkml.org/lkml/2019/10/13/42 >> >> It was tested for throughput with DPDK's testpmd (as described in >> http://doc.dpdk.org/guides/howto/virtio_user_as_exceptio...

...rad Rzeszutek Wilk > > <konrad.wilk at oracle.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Thu, Jun 11, 2020 at 07:34:19AM -0400, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > > > > As testing shows no performance change, switch to that now. > > > > > > What kind of testing? 100GiB? Low latency? > > > > > > > Hi Konrad. > > > > I tested this version of the patch: > > https://lkml.org/lkml/2019/10/13/42 > > > > It was tested for throughput with DPDK's testpmd (as described in > > http://doc.dpdk.org/guides/howto/virt...

...ne can point me in the right direction. Otherwise, keep reading . I noticed something odd today with one of our backups. I have an NT 2000 machine that pushes files to a 2003 Server machine and today someone brought to my attention that the backup seems to have well over 100GiB more than the primary server. When I checked and compared the drives, sure enough there was. Now, I have cwRsync set to --delete and --delete-excluded and looking at the log file it's doing what it's supposed to be doing and deleting (some) stuff, so this was baffling. There were no erro...

...acle.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Jun 11, 2020 at 07:34:19AM -0400, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > > > > > > As testing shows no performance change, switch to that now. > > > > > > > > > > What kind of testing? 100GiB? Low latency? > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Konrad. > > > > > > > > I tested this version of the patch: > > > > https://lkml.org/lkml/2019/10/13/42 > > > > > > > > It was tested for throughput with DPD...

...> > > > > On Thu, Jun 11, 2020 at 07:34:19AM -0400, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > > > > > > > > > As testing shows no performance change, switch to that now. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What kind of testing? 100GiB? Low latency? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Konrad. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I tested this version of the patch: > > > > > > > https://lkml.org/lkml/2...

...;> <konrad.wilk at oracle.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> On Thu, Jun 11, 2020 at 07:34:19AM -0400, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: >>>>>>>>> As testing shows no performance change, switch to that now. >>>>>>>> What kind of testing? 100GiB? Low latency? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> Hi Konrad. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I tested this version of the patch: >>>>>>> https://lkml.org/lkml/2019/10/13/42 >>>>>>> >>>>>>...

...oracle.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On Thu, Jun 11, 2020 at 07:34:19AM -0400, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> As testing shows no performance change, switch to that now. >>>>>>>>>> What kind of testing? 100GiB? Low latency? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Hi Konrad. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I tested this version of the patch: >>>>>>>>> https://lkml.org/lkml/2019/10/13/42 >>>&...

This still causes corruption issues for people so don't try to use in production please. Posting to expedite debugging. This adds infrastructure required for supporting multiple ring formats. The idea is as follows: we convert descriptors to an independent format first, and process that converting to iov later. Used ring is similar: we fetch into an independent struct first, convert that to

This still causes corruption issues for people so don't try to use in production please. Posting to expedite debugging. This adds infrastructure required for supporting multiple ring formats. The idea is as follows: we convert descriptors to an independent format first, and process that converting to iov later. Used ring is similar: we fetch into an independent struct first, convert that to

...t; >>>>>>>>>> On Thu, Jun 11, 2020 at 07:34:19AM -0400, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>> As testing shows no performance change, switch to that now. > > >>>>>>>>>> What kind of testing? 100GiB? Low latency? > > >>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> Hi Konrad. > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> I tested this version of the patch: > > >>>>>>>>>...