similar to: No subject

thanks that answered my question. One more question, is it possible to stop the delayed block allocation in ext4 ? >>> Andreas Dilger <adilger@dilger.ca> 6/3/2013 8:17 PM >>> On 2013-06-02, at 23:33, "Arul Selvan" <Rarul@novell.com> wrote: > Greetings. I am Arul Selvan works for Novell. I am exploring the Ext4 architecture, more specifically i would like

Greetings. I am Arul Selvan works for Novell. I am exploring the Ext4 architecture, more specifically i would like to understand the write ordering, basically the same blocks is modified more than once, how the write is ordered. Could you point me the doc or the specific source file to look. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL:

On 2013-06-02, at 23:33, "Arul Selvan" <Rarul at novell.com> wrote: > Greetings. I am Arul Selvan works for Novell. I am exploring the Ext4 architecture, more specifically i would like to understand the write ordering, basically the same blocks is modified more than once, how the write is ordered. Could you point me the doc or the specific source file to look. Writes in memory

[This email is either empty or too large to be displayed at this time]

[This email is either empty or too large to be displayed at this time]

[This email is either empty or too large to be displayed at this time]

[This email is either empty or too large to be displayed at this time]

I'm experiencing strange behavior from my ext3 RAID5 array and my Fedora Core 2 system. Before I go crazy varying all sorts of tuning parameters, I thought some list subscribers might provide me with useful advice. The problematic array is: 3x Promise Technology Ultra 100 TX2 PCI cards 6x Maxtor 250GB IDE drives (one drive per cable) RAID level 5, 128Kb chunk size, EXT3: "mkfs -t ext3

[This email is either empty or too large to be displayed at this time]

[This email is either empty or too large to be displayed at this time]

[This email is either empty or too large to be displayed at this time]

[This email is either empty or too large to be displayed at this time]

[This email is either empty or too large to be displayed at this time]

I have an ext3 filesystem that has several directories and each directory gets a large number of files inserted and then deleted over time. The filesystem is basically used as a temp store before files are processed. The issue is over time the directory scans get extremely slow even if the directories are empty. I have noticed the directories can range in size from 4k - 100M even when they are

[This email is either empty or too large to be displayed at this time]

[This email is either empty or too large to be displayed at this time]

An ext3 update for Alan's latest kernel is at http://www.uow.edu.au/~andrewm/linux/ext3/ The version of ext3 in -ac kernels currently stands at 0.9.6, so this is a fairly large diff. However most of this code has had a decent amount of external testing via the 0.9.9 patch. The changelog since 0.9.6 is below. Please test it if you can, and all being well we shall ask Alan to merge it a

[This email is either empty or too large to be displayed at this time]

(please reply on-list, so everybody can comment/help) Matt, thanks for the details, but apart from mount-option tuning and dir_index (which you've already enabled), I dunno why ls(1) would take *hours* to stat ~1M files... out of curiosity: are you able to try a newer kernel? does it change anything? Christian. ---------- Forwarded message ---------- The dir_index was enabled during

Dear r-help users, I have the following simple problem: Reading data from a file. The file is a .txt file exported ("save as...") from Excel (see below for an example). The Excel file consists of two header rows (first row consists of ticker symbols of stocks, the second row consists of column explanations ("Date","Px Last"), followed by several rows of