Daniel Iliev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> posted [EMAIL PROTECTED], excerpted below, on Sun, 06 May 2007 11:34:42 +0300:
> In case you didn't know... > > There are several kernel configuration options you can tweak to make it > cache more aggressively. Also you could try XFS - it is known to be one > of the most hungry-for-RAM file systems. Please, have in mind that these > tweaks could be dangerous for your file system in case of power failure. > Consider using an UPS. I knew about these in general, but still good to post as others may not. You are talking write-caching here. I generally leave that pretty much alone, for the reasons you mention (corruption in case of kernel panic and/or power failure). That's also why I've chosen not to run XFS. (I run reiserfs and while I did have issues some years ago, early kernel 2.4, I've had none since the introduction of data=ordered journaling and that as the default, even when I had faulty memory and was having fairly regular kernel panics as a result. I wouldn't have wanted to try that with big write caches and/or XFS!) The caching I had in mind was read caching. No risk there. =8^) -- Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs. "Every nonfree program has a lord, a master -- and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
