search for: stagger

From: Mark Milhollan Sent: April 21, 2015 05:35 > On Mon, 20 Apr 2015, Hugh E Cruickshank wrote: > > >CentOS 6 > > >From ''man fstab'' ... > > The sixth field, (fs_passno), is used by the fsck(8) > program to determine the order > in which filesystem checks are done at reboot time. > The root filesystem should be >

...6:08 AM, Hugh E Cruickshank wrote: > CentOS 6 > > Hi All: > > Over the weekend I had to reboot one of my systems and got hit with > fsck runs on all of the filesystems. I would not mind so much except > doing them all at once took over an hour. I would like to be able to > stagger these, ideally only execute one fsck per reboot. I have been > able to think of two possible solutions but neither is terrific. > > My first idea was to manually run fsck on each filesystem, one every > couple of weeks. That way they will not all come due at the same time > if we re...

...he order of execution or executing them in > parallel does not help with executing them one per reboot. Why do you care about running them at the same time when it doesn't take longer to run them all in parallel? Except I think the root filesystem normally runs first. So you might want to stagger it vs. everything else. And unless you reboot frequently you are probably hitting the time setting, not the mount count. -- Les Mikesell lesmikesell at gmail.com

...rsoft.com> wrote: > From: Les Mikesell Sent: April 21, 2015 09:19 >> >> Why do you care about running them at the same time when it doesn't >> take longer to run them all in parallel? Except I think the root >> filesystem normally runs first. So you might want to stagger it vs. >> everything else. > > I am trying to avoid running them at the same time in an effort to > avoid 70 minute boot times (which is what happened on the weekend). How many filesystems do you have? If you look at ./etc.fstab, everything where the final number is '1' (no...

CentOS 6 Hi All: Over the weekend I had to reboot one of my systems and got hit with fsck runs on all of the filesystems. I would not mind so much except doing them all at once took over an hour. I would like to be able to stagger these, ideally only execute one fsck per reboot. I have been able to think of two possible solutions but neither is terrific. My first idea was to manually run fsck on each filesystem, one every couple of weeks. That way they will not all come due at the same time if we reboot on a regular basis....

From: Les Mikesell Sent: April 21, 2015 09:19 > > Why do you care about running them at the same time when it doesn't > take longer to run them all in parallel? Except I think the root > filesystem normally runs first. So you might want to stagger it vs. > everything else. I am trying to avoid running them at the same time in an effort to avoid 70 minute boot times (which is what happened on the weekend). I accept that fscks are required on a periodic basis and I am willing to reboot more often to achieve these but I would like to minimi...

On Tue, Apr 21, 2015 at 9:38 AM, Hugh E Cruickshank <hugh at forsoft.com> wrote: > CentOS 6 > > > My first idea was to manually run fsck on each filesystem, one every > couple of weeks. That way they will not all come due at the same time > if we reboot on a regular basis. > > The second idea was to set each filesystem to a different random count > value. This

On 4/20/2015 9:08 PM, Hugh E Cruickshank wrote: > The second idea was to set each filesystem to a different random count > value. This would run the risk of having two or more executions at > the same time but it would probably not be very frequent. > > Does anyone have a suggestion for a better way of doing this? use XFS, no fsck's until/unless something catastrophic happens

On 04/21/2015 09:40 AM, Hugh E Cruickshank wrote: > I accept that fscks are required on a periodic basis and I am willing > to reboot more often to achieve these but I would like to minimize > downtime (during the reboot) where possible. Why do you accept that? The default behavior for filesystems set up by Red Hat tools (anaconda) is not to fsck. Not by mount count, nor by time.

On Apr 21, 2015, at 9:50 AM, Hugh E Cruickshank <hugh at forsoft.com> wrote: > > From: Kay Diederichs Sent: April 21, 2015 03:43 >> >> instead of having 20 for all of them, set >> the first filesystem to 17, the second to 19, the third to 23, and the >> fourth to 29. > > Thanks but that is not much different then my second idea and does not > fully

On Apr 22, 2015, at 11:56 AM, Hugh E Cruickshank <hugh at forsoft.com> wrote: > > I have done some "what if" testing. Using which tool? My simulator, or something you cooked up yourself? If the latter, would you care to share? I?ve updated mine to break out the stats for 3+ volumes instead of just reporting all multi-volume fscks together:

From: Warren Young Sent: April 22, 2015 20:46 > On Apr 22, 2015, at 11:56 AM, Hugh E Cruickshank > <hugh at forsoft.com> wrote: > > > > I have done some "what if" testing. > > Using which tool? My simulator, or something you cooked up > yourself? If the latter, would you care to share? I cobbled something together in OpenEdge ABL. I have uploaded

From: Warren Young Sent: April 21, 2015 14:13 > On Apr 21, 2015, at 9:50 AM, Hugh E Cruickshank wrote: > > > > From: Kay Diederichs Sent: April 21, 2015 03:43 > >> > >> instead of having 20 for all of them, set > >> the first filesystem to 17, the second to 19, the third to > 23, and the > >> fourth to 29. > > > > Thanks but

From: Kay Diederichs Sent: April 21, 2015 03:43 > On 04/21/2015 06:08 AM, Hugh E Cruickshank wrote: > > > > The second idea was to set each filesystem to a different random > > count value. This would run the risk of having two or more > > executions at the same time but it would probably not be very > > frequent. > > Using "tune2fs -c", set the

From: Gordon Messmer Sent: April 21, 2015 10:30 > > On 04/21/2015 09:40 AM, Hugh E Cruickshank wrote: > > I accept that fscks are required on a periodic basis and I > am willing > > to reboot more often to achieve these but I would like to minimize > > downtime (during the reboot) where possible. > > Why do you accept that? Every article I have read on the

...ing the PRs to see if there are any really critical regressions, but so far it looks pretty good. If you are actively disabling the new vector shuffling and have some PR that blocks you, please reply here. Later this week, the flag will go away unless I hear strenuous objections. There is a really staggering amount of cleanup and tidying that needs to take place and can't until we remove the old code paths. -Chandler -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20141124/c336475f/attachment.html>

Hello, I understand the need for a proper stride setting when formatting a filesystem on a RAID device. However, is there any problem in using a stride setting when formatting a filesystem on a regular non-RAID, non-SSD, just plain-vanilla-single-disk block device? I'm sure there isn't any benefit to it, but I'm curious if there is any harm. The reason I ask is I'm looking at

Hi, I have a data set like this: Mutant Rep Time OD 02H02 1 0 0.029 02H02 2 0 0.029 02H02 3 0 0.023 02H02 1 8 0.655 02H02 2 8 0.615 02H02 3 8 0.557 02H02 1 12 1.776 02H02 2 12 1.859 02H02 3 12 1.668 02H02 1 16 3.379 02H02 2 16 3.726 02H02 3 16 3.367 306 1 0 0.033 306 2

Has anyone attempted to run Rails inside of JRuby? Is that even possible? Aside from the performance implications, is it a bad idea? I''m thinking that it might be useful in very rare cases where a Ruby/Rails - equivalent of a Java solution may not exist yet. Any thoughts? Wes -- Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.

...unsuccessful. Sincerely Anna Zakrisson library(plotrix) ?brkdn.plot par(family="serif",font=1) brkdn.plot("y1", "factor1","factor2", data=mydata, mct="mean",md="sd", main="", cex=0.8, stagger=NA, xlab="factor1", ylab = "y1", dispbar=TRUE, type="b",pch=c(0),lty=1,col=par("fg")) par(new=TRUE) brkdn.plot("y2","factor1", "factor2",data=mydata, mct="mean",md=...