Re: [PATCH CFT] tons of logging patches

[Manuel Krause <manuel.krause@mb.tu-ilmenau.de>]

On 06/05/2002 11:13 PM, Manuel Krause wrote:
> On 06/04/2002 03:12 PM, Chris Mason wrote:
>  > On Mon, 2002-06-03 at 23:28, Manuel Krause wrote:
>  >
>  >
>  >>So, VMware is stable with it, too, on my well known "heavy-private-test"
>  >>of it (running Norton SpeedDisk at least twice within a most recent
>  >>VMware Win98). It doesn't show greatly different timings than to my
>  >>setup before though having a different disk i/o pattern (due to the
>  >>missing aa patches)... and me having a reduced RAM from 512to256MB at
>  >>the moment. And I should be honest to say I can't give exact timings as
>  >>the important disk contents changed during last weeks. But the
>  >>disk-access-times/related-to-the-content are definitively _not_ higher
>  >>than before!
>  >
>  >
>  > same speed on 1/2 the ram isn't bad ;-)
>  >
> [...]
> Don't know where to reply best...
[...]

BTW, what is this "only" diff good for (is it worth to recompile, I mean):
# diff '03-beta-data-logging-6.diff' '03-beta-data-logging-5.diff'
2777c2777
< +  if (SB_JOURNAL(p_s_sb)->j_num_lists > 512) {
---
 > +  if (SB_JOURNAL(p_s_sb)->j_num_lists > 256) {

Thank you,

Manuel

> 
> I was extraordinary glad to see the explicit wording of the mounted 
> partition in the logs we missed for so long time!
> 
> Thanks for your help,
> 
> Manuel
>