similar to: Is nouveau configurable in Fedora in aspect of display depth?

Assuming in a secure and trusted env, we want to get the maximum transfer speed without the overhead from ssh. Thanks. Fred -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://mail.opensolaris.org/pipermail/zfs-discuss/attachments/20121213/654f543f/attachment-0001.html>

The current virtio block sets a queue depth of 64. With a sufficiently fast device, using a queue depth of 256 can double the IOPS which can be sustained. So make the queue depth something which can be set at module load time or via a kernel boot-time parameter. Signed-off-by: "Theodore Ts'o" <tytso at mit.edu> Cc: Rusty Russell <rusty at rustcorp.com.au> Cc:

The current virtio block sets a queue depth of 64. With a sufficiently fast device, using a queue depth of 256 can double the IOPS which can be sustained. So make the queue depth something which can be set at module load time or via a kernel boot-time parameter. Signed-off-by: "Theodore Ts'o" <tytso at mit.edu> Cc: Rusty Russell <rusty at rustcorp.com.au> Cc:

On Fri, 2014-03-14 at 13:31 -0400, Theodore Ts'o wrote: > The current virtio block sets a queue depth of 64. With a > sufficiently fast device, using a queue depth of 256 can double the > IOPS which can be sustained. So make the queue depth something which > can be set at module load time or via a kernel boot-time parameter. [] > diff --git a/drivers/block/virtio_blk.c

On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 10:38:40AM -0700, Joe Perches wrote: > > +static int queue_depth = 64; > > +module_param(queue_depth, int, 444); > > 444? Really Ted? Oops, *blush*. Thanks for catching that. - Ted

Theodore Ts'o <tytso at mit.edu> writes: > On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 10:38:40AM -0700, Joe Perches wrote: >> > +static int queue_depth = 64; >> > +module_param(queue_depth, int, 444); >> >> 444? Really Ted? > > Oops, *blush*. Thanks for catching that. Erk, our tests are insufficient. Testbuilding an allmodconfig with this now: diff --git

On Sun, 2014-03-16 at 22:00 -0700, Joe Perches wrote: > On Mon, 2014-03-17 at 14:25 +1030, Rusty Russell wrote: > > > Erk, our tests are insufficient. Testbuilding an allmodconfig with this > > now: > > Good idea. > > > diff --git a/include/linux/moduleparam.h b/include/linux/moduleparam.h > [] > > @@ -188,6 +188,9 @@ struct kparam_array > > /*

On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 10:38:40AM -0700, Joe Perches wrote: > > +static int queue_depth = 64; > > +module_param(queue_depth, int, 444); > > 444? Really Ted? Oops, *blush*. Thanks for catching that. - Ted

On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 12:37 AM, Rusty Russell <rusty at rustcorp.com.au> wrote: > Joe Perches <joe at perches.com> writes: >> On Sun, 2014-03-16 at 22:00 -0700, Joe Perches wrote: >>> On Mon, 2014-03-17 at 14:25 +1030, Rusty Russell wrote: >>> >>> > Erk, our tests are insufficient. Testbuilding an allmodconfig with this >>> > now:

Couple more bikesheddy things: Is there ever a reason to use a non __builtin_const_p(perms)? Maybe that should be a BUILD_BUG_ON too BUILD_BUG_ON(!builtin_const_p_perms) My brain of little size gets confused by the BUILD_BUG_ON_ZERO(foo) + vs BUILD_BUG_ON(foo); as it just seems like more text for the same content. Is there any value on the "_ZERO(foo) +" I don't understand?

Couple more bikesheddy things: Is there ever a reason to use a non __builtin_const_p(perms)? Maybe that should be a BUILD_BUG_ON too BUILD_BUG_ON(!builtin_const_p_perms) My brain of little size gets confused by the BUILD_BUG_ON_ZERO(foo) + vs BUILD_BUG_ON(foo); as it just seems like more text for the same content. Is there any value on the "_ZERO(foo) +" I don't understand?

On Mon, 2014-03-17 at 14:25 +1030, Rusty Russell wrote: > Erk, our tests are insufficient. Testbuilding an allmodconfig with this > now: Good idea. > diff --git a/include/linux/moduleparam.h b/include/linux/moduleparam.h [] > @@ -188,6 +188,9 @@ struct kparam_array > /* Default value instead of permissions? */ \ > static int __param_perm_check_##name

On Mon, 2014-03-17 at 14:25 +1030, Rusty Russell wrote: > Erk, our tests are insufficient. Testbuilding an allmodconfig with this > now: Good idea. > diff --git a/include/linux/moduleparam.h b/include/linux/moduleparam.h [] > @@ -188,6 +188,9 @@ struct kparam_array > /* Default value instead of permissions? */ \ > static int __param_perm_check_##name

Currently, we modify the depth value stored in the atomic state when performing a commit in order to workaround the fact we haven't implemented support for depths higher then 10 yet. This isn't idempotent though, as it will happen every atomic commit where we modify the OR state even if the head's depth in the atomic state hasn't been modified. Normally this wouldn't matter,

Currently, we modify the depth value stored in the atomic state when performing a commit in order to workaround the fact we haven't implemented support for depths higher then 10 yet. This isn't idempotent though, as it will happen every atomic commit where we modify the OR state even if the head's depth in the atomic state hasn't been modified. Normally this wouldn't matter,

Currently, we modify the depth value stored in the atomic state when performing a commit in order to workaround the fact we haven't implemented support for depths higher then 10 yet. This isn't idempotent though, as it will happen every atomic commit where we modify the OR state even if the head's depth in the atomic state hasn't been modified. Normally this wouldn't matter,

Joe Perches <joe at perches.com> writes: > On Sun, 2014-03-16 at 22:00 -0700, Joe Perches wrote: >> On Mon, 2014-03-17 at 14:25 +1030, Rusty Russell wrote: >> >> > Erk, our tests are insufficient. Testbuilding an allmodconfig with this >> > now: >> >> Good idea. >> >> > diff --git a/include/linux/moduleparam.h

Joe Perches <joe at perches.com> writes: > On Sun, 2014-03-16 at 22:00 -0700, Joe Perches wrote: >> On Mon, 2014-03-17 at 14:25 +1030, Rusty Russell wrote: >> >> > Erk, our tests are insufficient. Testbuilding an allmodconfig with this >> > now: >> >> Good idea. >> >> > diff --git a/include/linux/moduleparam.h

http://www.lsi.com/channel/about_channel/whatsnew/warpdrive_slp300/index.html Good stuff for ZFS. Fred -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://mail.opensolaris.org/pipermail/zfs-discuss/attachments/20101117/d48186f0/attachment.html>

https://bugzilla.mindrot.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2049 Priority: P5 Bug ID: 2049 Assignee: unassigned-bugs at mindrot.org Summary: Request for a configurable option for SFTP to display login information to the user after a successful login. Severity: enhancement Classification: Unclassified