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 p497o2Ek070983 for ; Mon, 9 May 2011 02:50:04 -0500 Received: from mailsrv14.zmi.at (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cuda.sgi.com (Spam Firewall) with ESMTP id 8D2BE15A0911 for ; Mon, 9 May 2011 00:53:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mailsrv14.zmi.at (mailsrv1.zmi.at [212.69.164.54]) by cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id 6UG1rnPZNaaxuOPA for ; Mon, 09 May 2011 00:53:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mailsrv.i.zmi.at (h081217106033.dyn.cm.kabsi.at [81.217.106.33]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "mailsrv2.i.zmi.at", Issuer "power4u.zmi.at" (not verified)) by mailsrv14.zmi.at (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id B6BE0522 for ; Mon, 9 May 2011 09:53:38 +0200 (CEST) Received: from saturn.localnet (saturn.i.zmi.at [10.72.27.2]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mailsrv.i.zmi.at (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4794A401C3A for ; Mon, 9 May 2011 09:53:35 +0200 (CEST) From: Michael Monnerie Subject: Re: 2.6.38.4: xfs speed problem? Date: Mon, 9 May 2011 09:53:34 +0200 References: <20110508003321.GI26837@dastard> <4DC6D067.1080208@hardwarefreak.com> In-Reply-To: <4DC6D067.1080208@hardwarefreak.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <201105090953.35090@zmi.at> List-Id: XFS Filesystem from SGI List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============0822843354851686935==" Sender: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com Errors-To: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com To: xfs@oss.sgi.com --===============0822843354851686935== Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="nextPart1586613.nOVb0Pkeg8"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit --nextPart1586613.nOVb0Pkeg8 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable [removed some recipients] On Sonntag, 8. Mai 2011 Stan Hoeppner wrote: > remake the fs on the above device with 'sw=3D16' or remount with=20 > appropriate sunit and swidth values? A remount wouldn't help the existing metadata layout. Would it be=20 sufficient to remount with sw=3D16 and then create a top-level dir,=20 wherein you recreate all existing dirs new, then hard-link each file and=20 remove the old directory structure? Or would it be needed to copy the files too to get advantage of the new=20 sw? =2D-=20 mit freundlichen Gr=FCssen, Michael Monnerie, Ing. BSc it-management Internet Services: Prot=E9ger http://proteger.at [gesprochen: Prot-e-schee] Tel: +43 660 / 415 6531 // ****** Radiointerview zum Thema Spam ****** // http://www.it-podcast.at/archiv.html#podcast-100716 //=20 // Haus zu verkaufen: http://zmi.at/langegg/ --nextPart1586613.nOVb0Pkeg8 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.16 (GNU/Linux) iEYEABECAAYFAk3HnX8ACgkQzhSR9xwSCbR+xACbBRgo5xZgFVrkQm0R45Db9Pqb mn0AoOvVtgxw8Wd3A3v+JhfQsss5J7c+ =CN/n -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --nextPart1586613.nOVb0Pkeg8-- --===============0822843354851686935== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs --===============0822843354851686935==--