From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda3.sgi.com [192.48.176.15]) by oss.sgi.com (8.14.3/8.14.3/SuSE Linux 0.8) with ESMTP id o5G9dPYn124400 for ; Wed, 16 Jun 2010 04:39:26 -0500 Received: from bombadil.infradead.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cuda.sgi.com (Spam Firewall) with ESMTP id 1FE9A14DF969 for ; Wed, 16 Jun 2010 02:42:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: from bombadil.infradead.org ([18.85.46.34]) by cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id lZcUfAdoVEcxpAdl for ; Wed, 16 Jun 2010 02:42:03 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 16 Jun 2010 05:42:00 -0400 From: Christoph Hellwig Subject: Re: XFS status update for May 2010 Message-ID: <20100616094200.GB16216@infradead.org> References: <20100615132221.GA17385@infradead.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: List-Id: XFS Filesystem from SGI List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com Errors-To: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com To: Roel van Meer Cc: xfs@oss.sgi.com On Wed, Jun 16, 2010 at 11:13:07AM +0200, Roel van Meer wrote: > As of today I'm running 2.6.35-rc3 with XFS and delayed logging on a 4GB > software raid0 we use to do nightly builds of about 150 software > packages (kernel, samba, etc) on Slackware 10.1. > > If there's anything specific I can do, please let me know. I have > some more hardware around to test with. As long as things just work everything is perfect! If you have any performance numbers that compare to older kernel / the non delayed logging case for your workload we would certainly be interested in them. _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs