On Fri, Feb 16, 2001 at 04:44:48AM -0800, Theodore Y. Ts'o wrote:
> Note that this only shows up when using mke2fs to create very large
> filesystems, and you have relatively little memory. In this particular
If you can reproduce the oom of mke2fs on recent 2.2.19pre, could you try
again after
On Fri, Feb 16, 2001 at 04:44:48AM -0800, Theodore Y. Ts'o wrote:
Note that this only shows up when using mke2fs to create very large
filesystems, and you have relatively little memory. In this particular
If you can reproduce the oom of mke2fs on recent 2.2.19pre, could you try
again after
Tigran Aivazian wrote:
>
> On Thu, 15 Feb 2001, Samuel Flory wrote:
>
> > What is believed to be the current status of the typical mke2fs
> > crashes/hangs due to vm issues? I can reliably reproduce the issue on a
> > heavily modifed VA kernel based on 2.2.18. Is there a kernel which is
> >
Alan Cox wrote:
>
> > heavily modifed VA kernel based on 2.2.18. Is there a kernel which is
> > believed to be a known good kernel? (both 2.2.x and 2.4.x)
>
> I've not seen the problem on unmodified 2.2.18. The 2.2.17/18 VM does have
> its problems but not these. 2.2.19pre3 and higher have
> case, for example, we saw it with a system that had "only" 256 megs of
> memory, and creating a 72 gigabyte filesystem using a 8x9gb RAID
> configuration.
Ok I've only tested 90Gb on 2.2.19pre3, not more than that
> workaround did fix IBM's problem, which lends credence to the theory
> that
Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2001 09:48:17 + (GMT)
From: Alan Cox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> heavily modifed VA kernel based on 2.2.18. Is there a kernel which is
> believed to be a known good kernel? (both 2.2.x and 2.4.x)
I've not seen the problem on unmodified 2.2.18. The 2.2.17/18 VM
On Thu, 15 Feb 2001, Samuel Flory wrote:
> What is believed to be the current status of the typical mke2fs
> crashes/hangs due to vm issues? I can reliably reproduce the issue on a
> heavily modifed VA kernel based on 2.2.18. Is there a kernel which is
> believed to be a known good kernel?
> heavily modifed VA kernel based on 2.2.18. Is there a kernel which is
> believed to be a known good kernel? (both 2.2.x and 2.4.x)
I've not seen the problem on unmodified 2.2.18. The 2.2.17/18 VM does have
its problems but not these. 2.2.19pre3 and higher have the Andrea VM fixes which
have
heavily modifed VA kernel based on 2.2.18. Is there a kernel which is
believed to be a known good kernel? (both 2.2.x and 2.4.x)
I've not seen the problem on unmodified 2.2.18. The 2.2.17/18 VM does have
its problems but not these. 2.2.19pre3 and higher have the Andrea VM fixes which
have
On Thu, 15 Feb 2001, Samuel Flory wrote:
What is believed to be the current status of the typical mke2fs
crashes/hangs due to vm issues? I can reliably reproduce the issue on a
heavily modifed VA kernel based on 2.2.18. Is there a kernel which is
believed to be a known good kernel?
Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2001 09:48:17 + (GMT)
From: Alan Cox [EMAIL PROTECTED]
heavily modifed VA kernel based on 2.2.18. Is there a kernel which is
believed to be a known good kernel? (both 2.2.x and 2.4.x)
I've not seen the problem on unmodified 2.2.18. The 2.2.17/18 VM does
case, for example, we saw it with a system that had "only" 256 megs of
memory, and creating a 72 gigabyte filesystem using a 8x9gb RAID
configuration.
Ok I've only tested 90Gb on 2.2.19pre3, not more than that
workaround did fix IBM's problem, which lends credence to the theory
that the
Tigran Aivazian wrote:
On Thu, 15 Feb 2001, Samuel Flory wrote:
What is believed to be the current status of the typical mke2fs
crashes/hangs due to vm issues? I can reliably reproduce the issue on a
heavily modifed VA kernel based on 2.2.18. Is there a kernel which is
believed
Alan Cox wrote:
heavily modifed VA kernel based on 2.2.18. Is there a kernel which is
believed to be a known good kernel? (both 2.2.x and 2.4.x)
I've not seen the problem on unmodified 2.2.18. The 2.2.17/18 VM does have
its problems but not these. 2.2.19pre3 and higher have the Andrea
14 matches
Mail list logo
