similar to: Very long delay for first write to big filesystem

Thx Andreas. re: block bitmaps - yes that is what I really meant. My experience with filesystems is mainly from CPM/BDOS, where "directory" and block mapping are essentially synonymous. And now I understand about the timing. Makes sense when you describe it that way. My system is ext4, although I doubt that I used "flex_bg" option, since this was first created awhile back. I

On Jan 17, 2014, at 9:32, Ken Bass <daytooner at gmail.com> wrote: > > The problem/issue: there is a very long delay when my system does a write to the filesystem. The delay now is over 5 minutes (yes: minutes). This only happens on the first write after booting up the system, and only for large files - 1GB or more. This can be a serious problem since all access to any hard disk is

I hope this is the right list. I have created an ext2 filesystem and removed the dir_index feature. I don't know if this kind of experimentation is going to help me learn something about filesystems or not. Well what is dir_index? Then I ran e2fsck -f -v -pD and the /dev file. Now what did I remove? Htree. I guess it can always be put back and it's on an experimental filesystem.

* "Bill Cunningham" <billcun@suddenlink.net> hat geschrieben: > I hope this is the right list. I have created an ext2 filesystem and > removed the dir_index feature. I don't know if this kind of experimentation > is going to help me learn something about filesystems or not. Well what is > dir_index? Then I ran e2fsck -f -v -pD and the /dev file. Now what did I >

Andreas, why is it relevant only in case of RAID5 or RAID6? regards, Martin On Fri, Mar 7, 2014 at 5:57 PM, Andreas Dilger <adilger@dilger.ca> wrote: > Note that stride and stripe width only make sense for RAI-5/6 arrays. > For RAID-1 it doesn't really matter. > > Cheers, Andreas > >> On Mar 6, 2014, at 13:46, Martin T <m4rtntns@gmail.com> wrote: >>

The stripe and stride options do two things: - shift block and inode bitmaps in each group to be on different disks - align the block allocation to the stripe and stride boundaries to avoid read-modify-write in RAID The first one is irrelevant if the flex_bg option is used, since it already packs the bitmaps together and achieves the same effect. The second is meaningless for RAID-1 since

Hello, I have a production script that do read operations to a lot of small files. I read that one can gain performance boost with small files by using a loop device on top of Lustre. So a created 500 GB file striped across all of my OSTs(which are 8). I formatted the file with ext2 fs, and mounted it on a client. Just for the sake of testing a simple bash script finds all files with a given file

Hello everybody, first of all thank you the development of Ext2/3/4. It works like a charm and makes it possible to base applications on it. However, now I have the first time where I need more information to understand the behaviour of a ext4 installation on a 480 GB harddisk. It holds a database with a size of 355 GB, as said by "du -m": ... 355263 /opt/ssd However,

I have a file system I am trying to resize via resize2fs but I get this error resize2fs 1.41.14 (22-Dec-2010) resize2fs: New size too large to be expressed in 32 bits im on debian squeeze 2.6.32-5-amd64 # pvs ? PV???????? VG????? Fmt? Attr PSize? PFree ? /dev/md1?? vgRAID6 lvm2 a-?? 18.17t 134.12g # lvs ? LV??? VG????? Attr?? LSize? Origin Snap%? Move Log Copy%? Convert ? data1 vgRAID6 -wi-ao

----- Original Message ----- From: "Bodo Thiesen" <bothie@gmx.de> To: <ext3-users@redhat.com> Sent: Monday, August 25, 2014 8:15 PM Subject: Re: filesystem > Hello Bill. [snip] > You're trying to understand what exactly? From the user point of view, > dir_index just makes directory accesses on very big directories faster. > When creating a new file, or

Hi, we plan to set up a big file storage for media files like uncompressed movies from student film projects, dvd images etc. It should be some sort of archive and will not bee accessed by more than may be 5 people at the same time. The iSCSI RAID we have is about 26TB netto and I'm again faced with the question: How many partitions, which filesystem, which mount options etc. For the User

Yes indeed it is probably what's going on. what filesystem are you using and what are the mount options? ? Original Message ? From: lists at bago.org Sent: November 22, 2017 4:26 PM To: gluster-users at gluster.org Subject: [Gluster-users] error "Not able to add to index" in brick logs in my /var/log/gluster/bricks/mybrick-path.log I get thousands of those errors: ------

in my /var/log/gluster/bricks/mybrick-path.log I get thousands of those errors: ------ [2017-11-22 21:06:23.768354] E [MSGID: 138003] [index.c:624:index_link_to_base] 0-sharedvol-index: /home/sharedvol/.glusterfs/indices/xattrop/0b852dad-b332-4bfe-a38b-976729ee46a2: Not able to add to index [Troppi collegamenti] The message "E [MSGID: 138003] [index.c:624:index_link_to_base]

On Sun, 17 Dec 2023 20:16:23 -0500 Mark Foley via samba <samba at lists.samba.org> wrote: > on Sun Dec 17 12:15:28 2023 Rowland Penny via samba > <samba at lists.samba.org> wrote: > > > > On Sun, 17 Dec 2023 11:50:18 -0500 > > Mark Foley via samba <samba at lists.samba.org> wrote: > > > > > > Spindles7, Thanks. my cloning the

i posted on rhel list about proper creating of 6tb ext3 filesystem and tuning here.......http://www.redhat.com/archives/nahant-list/2006-November/msg00239.html i am reading lots of ext3 links like...... http://www.redhat.com/support/wpapers/redhat/ext3/ http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos/2005-September/052533.html http://batleth.sapienti-sat.org/projects/FAQs/ext3-faq.html ............but

Hi, I have two 3TB (hardware RAID-5) ext3 filesystems and recently added 1TB to each. I resized each filesystem and e2fsck -f reports that both are fine. However, when I look at the ext3 parameters with tune2fs -l one seems to have some parameters that the other one doesn't. In particular, one has: "Reserved GDT blocks", "Filesystem created", "Default directory

On 8/17/14, 12:28 PM, Roland Olbricht wrote: > Hello everybody, > > first of all thank you the development of Ext2/3/4. It works like a > charm and makes it possible to base applications on it. > However, "df" says: > > Filesystem 1K-blocks Used Available Use% Mounted on > ... > /dev/sdc 468346644 409888536 35015532 93% /opt/ssd >

> Am 30.11.2016 um 09:43 schrieb Liang Li: > > This patch set contains two parts of changes to the virtio-balloon. > > > > One is the change for speeding up the inflating & deflating process, > > the main idea of this optimization is to use bitmap to send the page > > information to host instead of the PFNs, to reduce the overhead of > > virtio data

> Am 30.11.2016 um 09:43 schrieb Liang Li: > > This patch set contains two parts of changes to the virtio-balloon. > > > > One is the change for speeding up the inflating & deflating process, > > the main idea of this optimization is to use bitmap to send the page > > information to host instead of the PFNs, to reduce the overhead of > > virtio data

Hello ext3 list, I am having an odd issue with one of my filesystems, and I am hoping someone here can help out. Yes, I do have backups. :) But as is often the case, it's nice to avoid restoring from backup if possible. If there is a more appropriate place for this question please let me know. After quite a while between reboots, I saw a report on the console that the filesystem was