search for: 175mb

I'm using the Yocto Project to build an embedded distro, to which I'm adding Samba 3.6 from OpenEmbedded. Doing so increases my root file system from about 63MB to 175MB. I seem to be building a large Samba server with a small ancillary operating system tacked onto it. I listed the files in my file system image, and see that lots of the commands are quite large. I understand that Samba 4 is better behaved in this way, but writing my own bitbake recipe to include s...

...eated. So I thought "WOW" ... next I did was checking the data rate, so I wrote a file with 4G in size (with dd) to the disk. One to the disk created for the SR and one to a disk one "abstraction layer" lower (or obove ? ... whatever ... :) ). The difference was quite noticable ~175MB/s on the SR disk and ~211MB/s one layer lower... Hm... I did some searching, but this seems to be the normal way... So my question: Is it somehow possible to attach an LV to be used (and managed) by XEN as a SR more directly (instead of having it create this whole bunch of virtulization-thingies.....

...n successfully do dd if=/dev/drbd0 of=/dev/null bs=1M (~185 MB/s speed, if it can be useful) the same (similar) command in domU on /dev/sda (dev/drbd0 as seen by domU) causes domU to crash, but only if I start the domain using less memory than maxmem. If I have memory=maxmem the disk read is ok (~175MB/s speed). I''ve found the problem trying to check the FS on /dev/sda2 (ReiserFS) and then discovered that it''s relative to any "massive" disk access I do. In Xen logs: [2010-10-04 15:34:55 5816] WARNING (XendDomainInfo:2106) Domain has crashed: name=mydomu id=15. [201...

I have just completed the installation of a new firewall running Shorewall 1.4 on Mandrake 9.2 for our campus network. It appears to be running fairly well so far, but is generating significantly more log entries than our previous linux 2.0.x firewall... Our previous firewall enjoyed more than 6 years of 24/7 operation with no downtime before we finally decided it needed more horsepower, and

Running a zpool scrub on our production pool is showing a scrub rate of about 400K/s. (When this pool was first set up we saw rates in the MB/s range during a scrub). Both zpool iostat and an iostat -Xn show lots of idle disk times, no above average service times, no abnormally high busy percentages. Load on the box is .59. 8 x 3GHz, 32GB ram, 96 spindles arranged into raidz zdevs on OI 147.

I am [trying to] perform a test prior to moving my data to solaris and zfs. Things are going very poorly. Please suggest what I might do to understand what is going on, report a meaningful bug report, fix it, whatever! Both to learn what the compression could be, and to induce a heavy load to expose issues, I am running with compress=gzip-9. I have two machines, both identical 800MHz P3 with