On Wed, 2007-03-21 at 20:59 +0100, Jens Axboe wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 21 2007, Dale Blount wrote:
> > On Wed, 2007-03-21 at 14:09 -0400, Chuck Ebbert wrote:
> > > Dale Blount wrote:
> > > >> I'm puzzled why this is hitting Dan, but no one else has reported
> &
On Wed, 2007-03-21 at 20:59 +0100, Jens Axboe wrote:
On Wed, Mar 21 2007, Dale Blount wrote:
On Wed, 2007-03-21 at 14:09 -0400, Chuck Ebbert wrote:
Dale Blount wrote:
I'm puzzled why this is hitting Dan, but no one else has reported
anything. Dan, did 2.6.19 work for you
On Wed, 2007-03-21 at 14:09 -0400, Chuck Ebbert wrote:
> Dale Blount wrote:
> >> I'm puzzled why this is hitting Dan, but no one else has reported
> >> anything. Dan, did 2.6.19 work for you?
> >
> > Actually, I believe it is happening to me too. This is on
> I'm puzzled why this is hitting Dan, but no one else has reported
> anything. Dan, did 2.6.19 work for you?
Actually, I believe it is happening to me too. This is on a 4-disk raid5 with
one failed disk on two 2-port sata_sil pci controller cards.
The BUG below is from 2.6.20.3, but I will try
I'm puzzled why this is hitting Dan, but no one else has reported
anything. Dan, did 2.6.19 work for you?
Actually, I believe it is happening to me too. This is on a 4-disk raid5 with
one failed disk on two 2-port sata_sil pci controller cards.
The BUG below is from 2.6.20.3, but I will try
On Wed, 2007-03-21 at 14:09 -0400, Chuck Ebbert wrote:
Dale Blount wrote:
I'm puzzled why this is hitting Dan, but no one else has reported
anything. Dan, did 2.6.19 work for you?
Actually, I believe it is happening to me too. This is on a 4-disk raid5
with
one failed disk on two 2
On Tue, 2007-02-27 at 13:54 -0500, Dale Blount wrote:
> On Fri, 2007-02-23 at 12:00 -0500, Dale Blount wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > Excuse me if this has been covered or fixed, I couldn't find anything in
> > the archives.
> >
> > I upgraded from 2.6.11.7 to
On Tue, 2007-02-27 at 13:54 -0500, Dale Blount wrote:
On Fri, 2007-02-23 at 12:00 -0500, Dale Blount wrote:
Hi,
Excuse me if this has been covered or fixed, I couldn't find anything in
the archives.
I upgraded from 2.6.11.7 to 2.6.20.1 today and found all the drives
connected to 2
On Fri, 2007-02-23 at 12:00 -0500, Dale Blount wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Excuse me if this has been covered or fixed, I couldn't find anything in
> the archives.
>
> I upgraded from 2.6.11.7 to 2.6.20.1 today and found all the drives
> connected to 2 brands of sata_sil sata co
On Fri, 2007-02-23 at 12:00 -0500, Dale Blount wrote:
Hi,
Excuse me if this has been covered or fixed, I couldn't find anything in
the archives.
I upgraded from 2.6.11.7 to 2.6.20.1 today and found all the drives
connected to 2 brands of sata_sil sata controllers not working. The
drives
Hi,
Excuse me if this has been covered or fixed, I couldn't find anything in
the archives.
I upgraded from 2.6.11.7 to 2.6.20.1 today and found all the drives
connected to 2 brands of sata_sil sata controllers not working. The
drives are also (now) of various brands, Maxtor 300GB and 500GB
Hi,
Excuse me if this has been covered or fixed, I couldn't find anything in
the archives.
I upgraded from 2.6.11.7 to 2.6.20.1 today and found all the drives
connected to 2 brands of sata_sil sata controllers not working. The
drives are also (now) of various brands, Maxtor 300GB and 500GB
> inotify is intended to correct the deficiencies of dnotify, particularly
> its inability to scale and its terrible user interface:
>
> * dnotify requires the opening of one fd per each directory
> that you intend to watch. This quickly results in too many
> open
inotify is intended to correct the deficiencies of dnotify, particularly
its inability to scale and its terrible user interface:
* dnotify requires the opening of one fd per each directory
that you intend to watch. This quickly results in too many
open files and
On Wed, 2005-02-16 at 21:04 +0100, Ralf Hildebrandt wrote:
> * Jan Kara <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> > I guess the system is SMP...
>
> Indeed it is. Dual Xeon with SMP.
>
This looks very similar (at least to me) to an OOPS I posted with 2.6.9
on 12/03/2004.
On Wed, 2005-02-16 at 21:04 +0100, Ralf Hildebrandt wrote:
* Jan Kara [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
I guess the system is SMP...
Indeed it is. Dual Xeon with SMP.
This looks very similar (at least to me) to an OOPS I posted with 2.6.9
on 12/03/2004.
16 matches
Mail list logo
