On Fri, 27 Sep 2002 13:06:00 -0400 (EDT)
Garrett Wollman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Thu, Sep 26, 2002 at 09:13:41PM +0200, Alexander Leidinger wrote:
> >> Yes, bg-fsck isn't really usable at the moment.
>
> > They work fine for me for quite a while. The last buildworld on my
> > server w
On Sat, Sep 28, 2002, Zhihui Zhang wrote:
> Hope I can bother you with two more questions (I know nothing about
> sendmail beyond its name):
>
> (1) Can sendmail be configured to generate automatic messages for the
> purpose of performance test?
No. sendmail is an MTA, not a performance tes
On Thu, 26 Sep 2002, Claus Assmann wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 26, 2002, Zhihui Zhang wrote:
> > On Thu, 26 Sep 2002, Claus Assmann wrote:
>
> > > If someone is interested:
> > > http://www.sendmail.org/~ca/email/sm-9-rfh.html
>
> > > Just as a small data point: I get message acceptance rates of
> >
Tony Finch wrote:
> Terry Lambert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >Tony Finch wrote:
> >> Exim doesn't do per-domain queue runs; when it successfully delivers
> >> mail to a host it checks its hints database for any queued mail that
> >> can go to the same place and shoves them down the same connecti
Terry Lambert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Tony Finch wrote:
>> Exim doesn't do per-domain queue runs; when it successfully delivers
>> mail to a host it checks its hints database for any queued mail that
>> can go to the same place and shoves them down the same connection --
>> no scanning of mult
Alexander Leidinger wrote:
> > > Sorry, I don't get it. Can you please be more verbose?
> >
> > This has been discussed to death before, and Kirk McKusick has
> > already posted the definitive post on the topic to FreeBSD-FS.
>
> Keywords (besides SO and Kirk McKusick)/timeframe/message ID/URL?
Tony Finch wrote:
> Exim doesn't do per-domain queue runs; when it successfully delivers
> mail to a host it checks its hints database for any queued mail that
> can go to the same place and shoves them down the same connection --
> no scanning of multiple files involved.
So how does it implement
< said:
> On Thu, Sep 26, 2002 at 09:13:41PM +0200, Alexander Leidinger wrote:
>> Yes, bg-fsck isn't really usable at the moment.
> They work fine for me for quite a while. The last buildworld on my
> server was Sept 15th.
Worked fine for me on my home desktop as well -- but I know that fsck
h
Terry Lambert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Claus Assmann wrote:
>[ ... out of order answer, not related to main topic ... ]
>> "Per domain" doesn't work easily if you have multiple recipients.
>> Anyway, the new design clearly distinguishes between the content
>> files and the data that is necessar
On Thu, 26 Sep 2002 20:06:00 -0700 "David O'Brien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 26, 2002 at 09:13:41PM +0200, Alexander Leidinger wrote:
> > Yes, bg-fsck isn't really usable at the moment.
>
> They work fine for me for quite a while. The last buildworld on my
> server was Sept 15th.
On Thu, 26 Sep 2002 12:40:49 -0700 Terry Lambert
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Journalling has advantages that a non-journalling FS with soft
> > > updates does not -- can not -- have, particularly since it is
> > > not possible to distinguish a power failure from a hardware
> > > failure from
Thus spake Alexander Leidinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On Thu, 26 Sep 2002 10:52:18 -0500 Dan Nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> > > We have something better than those. SoftUpdates. Much faster than
> > > jfs in metadata intensive operations.
> >
> > If you can stand the 20 minutes of sever
On Thu, Sep 26, 2002, Zhihui Zhang wrote:
> On Thu, 26 Sep 2002, Claus Assmann wrote:
> > If someone is interested:
> > http://www.sendmail.org/~ca/email/sm-9-rfh.html
> > Just as a small data point: I get message acceptance rates of
> > 400msgs/s on a journalling file system (using a "normal" P
On Thu, Sep 26, 2002 at 09:13:41PM +0200, Alexander Leidinger wrote:
> Yes, bg-fsck isn't really usable at the moment.
They work fine for me for quite a while. The last buildworld on my
server was Sept 15th.
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in th
Terry Lambert wrote:
> Yes, soft updates does nothing of user data, it is a metadata
> technology. Journalling is implementation dependent; not all
> JFS implementations will journal data which is not metadata, so
> your results would depend on the JFS.
I think you are not correct here. If I und
Claus Assmann wrote:
[ ... out of order answer, not related to main topic ... ]
> "Per domain" doesn't work easily if you have multiple recipients.
> Anyway, the new design clearly distinguishes between the content
> files and the data that is necessary for delivery.
Actually, it works fine, sinc
On Thu, 26 Sep 2002 14:54:00 -0400 Scott Dodson
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I've been having loads of problems with the bg-fsck. After recovering
> from a crash/power failure my machine will boot and start the check.
> If there's moderate activity during the time its checking it will
> panic an
On Thu, 26 Sep 2002 10:36:27 -0700 Terry Lambert
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> That said, journalling and Soft Updates are totally orthogonal
> technologies, just as btree and linear directory structures are
> two orthogonal things.
>
> Journalling has advantages that a non-journalling FS with so
David Malone wrote:
> > > On Thu, Sep 26, 2002 at 10:36:27AM -0700, Terry Lambert wrote:
> > > > I think that what you were probably testing was directory entry
> > > > layout and O(N) (linear) vs. O(log2(N)+1) search times for both
> > > > non-existant entries on creates, and for any entry on loo
I've been having loads of problems with the bg-fsck. After recovering from
a crash/power failure my machine will boot and start the check. If there's
moderate activity during the time its checking it will panic and reboot, getting
stuck in a loop most of the time. I've not seen anyone mention th
On Thu, 26 Sep 2002, Claus Assmann wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 26, 2002, Terry Lambert wrote:
> > Claus Assmann wrote:
>
> > > When we tested several filesystems for mailservers (to store the
> > > mail queue), JFS and ext3 (in journal mode) beat UFS with softupdates
> > > by about a factor of 2.
> >
On Thu, Sep 26, 2002, Terry Lambert wrote:
> Claus Assmann wrote:
> > When we tested several filesystems for mailservers (to store the
> > mail queue), JFS and ext3 (in journal mode) beat UFS with softupdates
> > by about a factor of 2.
>
> Hi Claus! Nice to hear from someone who actually tests
> > On Thu, Sep 26, 2002 at 10:36:27AM -0700, Terry Lambert wrote:
> > > I think that what you were probably testing was directory entry
> > > layout and O(N) (linear) vs. O(log2(N)+1) search times for both
> > > non-existant entries on creates, and for any entry on lookup
> > > ( / 2 on lookup) .
David Malone wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 26, 2002 at 10:36:27AM -0700, Terry Lambert wrote:
> > I think that what you were probably testing was directory entry
> > layout and O(N) (linear) vs. O(log2(N)+1) search times for both
> > non-existant entries on creates, and for any entry on lookup
> > ( / 2 on
On Thu, Sep 26, 2002 at 10:36:27AM -0700, Terry Lambert wrote:
> I think that what you were probably testing was directory entry
> layout and O(N) (linear) vs. O(log2(N)+1) search times for both
> non-existant entries on creates, and for any entry on lookup
> ( / 2 on lookup) .
Though dirhash sho
Claus Assmann wrote:
> > > > Does CURRENT support journaled filesystem ?
> > >
> > > There are not journaling file systems in current at this time.
> > > Efforts to port both xfs and jfs are underway.
> >
> > We have something better than those. SoftUpdates. Much faster than jfs
> > in metadata
On Thu, 26 Sep 2002 10:52:18 -0500 Dan Nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> > We have something better than those. SoftUpdates. Much faster than
> > jfs in metadata intensive operations.
>
> If you can stand the 20 minutes of severly degraded performance while
> the background fsck runs after a c
On Thu, Sep 26, 2002, Alexander Leidinger wrote:
> On Wed, 25 Sep 2002 11:12:34 -0700 Brooks Davis
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > Does CURRENT support journaled filesystem ?
> >
> > There are not journaling file systems in current at this time.
> > Efforts to port both xfs and jfs are u
In the last episode (Sep 26), Alexander Leidinger said:
> On Wed, 25 Sep 2002 11:12:34 -0700 Brooks Davis
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Does CURRENT support journaled filesystem ?
> >
> > There are not journaling file systems in current at this time.
> > Efforts to port both xfs and jfs a
On Wed, 25 Sep 2002 11:12:34 -0700 Brooks Davis
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Does CURRENT support journaled filesystem ?
>
> There are not journaling file systems in current at this time.
> Efforts to port both xfs and jfs are underway.
We have something better than those. SoftUpdates. M
* De: Matthias Schuendehuette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [ Data: 2002-09-25 ]
[ Subjecte: Re: Journaled filesystem in CURRENT ]
> If I may add a comment here...
>
> You already *have* a kind of journaled filesystem for some time now.
>
> Please read "Soft Updates v
If I may add a comment here...
You already *have* a kind of journaled filesystem for some time now.
Please read "Soft Updates vs. Journalling Filesystems" from M.K.
McKusick (www.mckusick.com).
I'm really sad if see the efforts done especially for porting JFS to
FreeBSD, which has already und
On Wed, Sep 25, 2002 at 04:19:34PM +0300, Anton Yudin wrote:
>
> Does CURRENT support journaled filesystem ?
There are not journaling file systems in current at this time. Efforts
to port both xfs and jfs are underway.
-- Brooks
--
Any statement of the form "X is the one, true Y" is FA
Does CURRENT support journaled filesystem ?
P.S. please, CC me, i'm not subscribed
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
34 matches
Mail list logo
