* Chris Marble [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Wed, Feb 21, 2001 at 09:51:32PM -0800)
Gerhard den Hollander wrote:
Since it's a linux box , you may want to look into using reiserFS.
I found that file access with Reiser is faster than ext2 (although nothing
shocking) esp. when going through a lot of
Gerhard den Hollander wrote:
Since it's a linux box , you may want to look into using reiserFS.
I found that file access with Reiser is faster than ext2 (although nothing
shocking) esp. when going through a lot of smaller files in one swoop.
I formatted up the holding disk with a large
* Chris Marble [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Sat, Feb 17, 2001 at 07:59:17PM -0800)
Gerhard den Hollander wrote:
I noticed when looking through the logs that the *dumper* performance is
around the 1Kps (or less) on my system ,
whereas the *taper* gets a performance of about 7 Kps.
So apparently
Hmm,
Favor #1: can the reply to adress on the digests be set to @amanda.org ;)
* [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Fri, Jan 19, 2001 at 06:34:02AM
-)
First off, thanks to all who answered my priorities question. ;)
Second.
I noticed when looking through the logs that the *dumper*
On Fri, Jan 19, 2001 at 09:59:57AM +0100, Gerhard den Hollander wrote:
Hmm,
Favor #1: can the reply to adress on the digests be set to @amanda.org ;)
* [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Fri, Jan 19, 2001 at
06:34:02AM -)
unsubscribe from [EMAIL PROTECTED] and
subscribe to [EMAIL
I've found that when gzip is running on my own, and clients systems it's
usually using 95+% of one cpu, which isn't a problem for us or them because
the machines either have a spare cpu, or aren't doing anything at the time.
more of a problem for bigger sites where your server will always be
