on Sun, Nov 11, 2001 at 04:35:06PM +0100, Eduard Bloch ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
wrote:
> #include
> Karsten M. Self wrote on Sun Nov 11, 2001 um 03:49:33AM:
>
> > > the list and searched for that entry. Ext3 stores the position the
> > > last found entry, so when accessing again, the search begins an
On Saturday, November 10, 2001, at 05:03 PM, Karsten M. Self wrote:
on Sat, Nov 10, 2001 at 03:16:54PM -0500, Tom Allison
([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
So, unlike what I read in ReiserFS, I can just hang out on this for a
while and then upgrade at my leisure? This is so totally cool
Is the
#include
Karsten M. Self wrote on Sun Nov 11, 2001 um 03:49:33AM:
> > the list and searched for that entry. Ext3 stores the position the
> > last found entry, so when accessing again, the search begins an this
> > position and you get your entry wery fast, in best case within the
> > first search
on Sun, Nov 11, 2001 at 11:59:55AM +0100, Eduard Bloch ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
wrote:
> #include
> Karsten M. Self wrote on Sat Nov 10, 2001 um 02:48:33PM:
> > > Now that you said this... I'd like to see how reiserfs and
> > > ext3 in writeback mode perform. I'd think ext3 would still be
> > > outper
#include
Karsten M. Self wrote on Sat Nov 10, 2001 um 02:48:33PM:
> > Now that you said this... I'd like to see how reiserfs and
> > ext3 in writeback mode perform. I'd think ext3 would still be
> > outperformed by reiser for the large dir listings.
>
> The issue isn't writing the directories, bu
on Sat, Nov 10, 2001 at 08:12:09PM -0200, Jeronimo Pellegrini ([EMAIL
PROTECTED]) wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 10, 2001 at 02:03:10PM -0800, Karsten M. Self wrote:
> > I've got both ext3fs and reiserfs on my most recent laptop build.
> >
> > There are advantages to each.
> >
> > Reiserfs has better perf
On Sat, Nov 10, 2001 at 02:03:10PM -0800, Karsten M. Self wrote:
> I've got both ext3fs and reiserfs on my most recent laptop build.
>
> There are advantages to each.
>
> Reiserfs has better performance with larger filesystems, particularly
> for large directory listings. In one case, I've got a
on Sat, Nov 10, 2001 at 03:16:54PM -0500, Tom Allison ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> So, unlike what I read in ReiserFS, I can just hang out on this for a
> while and then upgrade at my leisure? This is so totally cool
> Is there an performance difference between this "conversion" and
> start
on Sat, Nov 10, 2001 at 12:37:34PM -0500, Michael P. Soulier ([EMAIL
PROTECTED]) wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 10, 2001 at 11:10:50AM -0600, DvB wrote:
> > ... it's in as of 2.4.15-pre2
> >
> > http://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/testing/patch-2.4.15.log
>
> Great, they're weren't even done with 2
Jeronimo Pellegrini wrote:
See, there's no difference between "converting" and "starting from
scratch'. Starting from scratch would mean create a ext2 filesystem and
add the journal file to it, etc... (And this is absolutely great!)
Read some documentation on ext3:
http://people.spoiled.org/j
On Sat, Nov 10, 2001 at 03:16:54PM -0500, Tom Allison wrote:
> >No, you just have to use tune2fs to add a journal file to each
> >partition, and change your fstab. ext3 is forward and backward
> >compatible with ext2. Oh -- you will need a recent version of e2fsprogs
> >
> >J.
>
> So, unlike what
Jeronimo Pellegrini wrote:
After all, wouldn't
I have to reinstall everying on a new set up partitions in order to get
the support for ext3???
No, you just have to use tune2fs to add a journal file to each
partition, and change your fstab. ext3 is forward and backward
compatible with ext2.
> I went from the stable kernel in potatoe to 2.4.9 to 2.4.12. I had to
> get to 2.4.12 because 2.4.9 had some irda problems.
>
> I won't get getting into 2.4.15 for a while yet as I'm curious to see
> how this ext3 really shakes out and how it's used.
2.4.15-pre2 locks my box hard...
> After
Michael P. Soulier wrote:
On Sat, Nov 10, 2001 at 12:53:38PM -0500, Jason Wojciechowski wrote:
It's a conscious choice. I've read that Alan Cox is a big fan of lots
of small-change releases rather than a few big ones.
I guess it makes sense to release that way, I just wish they version
On Sat, Nov 10, 2001 at 12:53:38PM -0500, Jason Wojciechowski wrote:
>
> It's a conscious choice. I've read that Alan Cox is a big fan of lots
> of small-change releases rather than a few big ones.
I guess it makes sense to release that way, I just wish they versioned a
little differently, s
* Michael P. Soulier ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) spake thusly:
> Great, they're weren't even done with 2.4.14 yet. Is it just me, or are
> they churning out releases too damn fast for comfort?
release early, release often. it's easier to locate and correct bugs in
"small change" releases than it is
Michael P. Soulier wrote:
| Great, they're weren't even done with 2.4.14 yet. Is it just me,
| or are they churning out releases too damn fast for comfort? I am
| reassured by Debian's slow release cycle that it will be of high
| quality. Kernel.org is slowly becoming as bad as
On Sat, Nov 10, 2001 at 11:10:50AM -0600, DvB wrote:
> ... it's in as of 2.4.15-pre2
>
> http://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/testing/patch-2.4.15.log
Great, they're weren't even done with 2.4.14 yet. Is it just me, or are
they churning out releases too damn fast for comfort? I am reassured
... it's in as of 2.4.15-pre2
http://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/testing/patch-2.4.15.log
19 matches
Mail list logo
