search for: 107mb

...modify the partition table I am starting with 3 partitions like this # parted /dev/sda print Model: VMware, VMware Virtual S (scsi) Disk /dev/sda: 10.7GB Sector size (logical/physical): 512B/512B Partition Table: msdos Number Start End Size Type File system Flags 1 32.3kB 107MB 107MB primary ext3 boot 2 107MB 4828MB 4721MB primary ext3 3 4828MB 9023MB 4195MB primary lvm And I want to remove partitions 2 & 3 and recreate 2 from the end of 1 to the end of the disk i.e. all the free space. Removing 2 and 3 is easy. # part...

...; to view a list of commands. (parted) print Model: IC35L040AVVN07-0 (ide) Disk /dev/hda: 40.0GB Sector size (logical/physical): 512B/512B Partition Table: msdos Number Start End Size Type File system Flags 1 32.3kB 107MB 107MB primary ext3 boot 2 107MB 40.0GB 39.9GB primary lvm [root@dyn-9-1-75-65 ~]# lvm lvm> pvdisplay --- Physical volume --- PV Name /dev/hda2 VG Name VolGroup00 PV Size 37.17 GB / not usable 12.24 MB...

...================== [root at vmail log]# parted -l Error: Unable to open /dev/md0 - unrecognised disk label. Model: Unknown (unknown) Disk /dev/vda: 623GB Sector size (logical/physical): 512B/512B Partition Table: msdos Number Start End Size Type File system Flags 1 32.3kB 107MB 107MB primary ext3 boot 2 107MB 85.9GB 85.8GB primary lvm 3 85.9GB 623GB 537GB primary lvm [root at vmail log]# [root at vmail log]# df -h Filesystem Size Used Avail Use% Mounted on /dev/mapper/VolGroup00-LogVol00...

...US" -e "de_DE" -e "en_GB" | xargs localedef --delete-from-archive $ mv /usr/lib/locale/locale-archive /usr/lib/locale/locale-archive.tmpl $ build-locale-archive After this, the size of the locale-archive file is ~4MB, and running a single Bash instance does not show "107MB" for SGE anymore :-) Et voil?! J?r?mie 2012/9/27 Les Mikesell <lesmikesell at gmail.com>: > On Thu, Sep 27, 2012 at 10:46 AM, Gordon Messmer <yinyang at eburg.com> wrote: >> >>> I understand it may not be very precise, however I still don't >>>...

...r the crypto part (with padding and so on). Regarding statistics, do you have anything specific in mind? A ~100MiB file copied with scp over a 10MBit link (the percentage number after CPU indicates the CPU load as observed by top): (scp file server:) zstd | CPU, ssh 4-6%, sshd 7-16% | file 100% 107MB 11.5MB/s 00:09 | Transferred: sent 11144324, received 30760 bytes, in 9.5 seconds | Bytes per second: sent 1176963.9, received 3248.6 | debug1: compress outgoing: raw data 112653640, compressed 11056148, factor 0.10 | debug1: compress incoming: raw data 9281, compressed 12113, factor 1.31 zlib...

infernix wrote: > Copying a 107MB mp3 file takes almost 4 minutes (238 seconds) > when I copy it with samba. [Using windows explorer under Windows 2000 --dave] > With FTP, it takes 27 seconds. > 238 divided by 27 = 8.5 times slower. Ho boy, that's bad. > I have several machines available to do testing, but you...

On 10/24/2016 04:51 AM, mark wrote: > Absolutely add nobarrier, and see what happens. Using "nobarrier" might increase overall write throughput, but it removes an important integrity feature, increasing the risk of filesystem corruption on power loss. I wouldn't recommend doing that unless your system is on a UPS, and you've tested and verified that it will perform an

...commend doing that > unless your system is on a UPS, and you've tested and verified that it > will perform an orderly shutdown when the UPS is on battery power and > its charge is low. > As I noted in my original repost, that it needs to be on a UPS, and to repeat myself, untaring a 107MB tarfile on an xfs filesystem mounted over NFS, it was ->seven minutes<-, 100% repeatable, while after we added nobarrier and remounted it, it was about ->40 seconds<-. That's *hugely* significant. mark

...to disable checksumming? I'm using rsync with -W, whole file, so if a file has changed I don't want to just transfer the changes. The source and destination or local filesystems. I've noticed that performance in 3.0.6 is slower than 2.6.9. 3.0.6 is at ~90MB/sec and 2.6.9 is at ~107MB/sec. I'm looking for anything that can help to improve transfer rates on large files. thanks, Greg

I added ZSTD support to OpenSSH roughly over a year and I've been playing with it ever since. The nice part is that ZSTD achieves reasonable compression (like zlib) but consumes little CPU so it is unlikely that compression becomes the bottle neck of a transfer. The compression overhead (CPU) is negligible even when uncompressed data is tunneled over the SSH connection (SOCKS proxy, port