[reiserfs-list] reiserfs_read_inode2: dead inode read from disk

2002-04-29 Thread Basil A. Evseenko
clm-6004: convert tail failed inode 2300597, error -122 clm-6004: convert tail failed inode 2300597, error -122 clm-6004: convert tail failed inode 2300597, error -122 clm-6004: convert tail failed inode 2300597, error -122 clm-6004: convert tail failed inode 4563293, error -122 vs-13075:

Re: [reiserfs-list] reiserfs_read_inode2: dead inode read from disk

2002-04-29 Thread Oleg Drokin
Hello! On Mon, Apr 29, 2002 at 03:13:35PM +0400, Basil A. Evseenko wrote: clm-6004: convert tail failed inode 2300597, error -122 This one failed because of disk quota exceed. Safe to ignore I assume. vs-13075: reiserfs_read_inode2: dead inode read from disk [3547658 9266355 0x0 SD]. This

[reiserfs-list] fsync() Performance Issue

2002-04-29 Thread berthiaume_wayne
I'm wondering if anyone out there may have some suggestions on how to improve the performance of a system employing fsync(). I have to be able to guaranty that every write to my fileserver is on disk when the client has passed it to the server. Therefore, I have disabled write cache on

Re: [reiserfs-list] fsync() Performance Issue

2002-04-29 Thread Russell Coker
On Fri, 26 Apr 2002 22:28, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It's interesting to note your email address and what it implies... I'm wondering if anyone out there may have some suggestions on how to improve the performance of a system employing fsync(). I have to be able to guaranty that every

Re: [reiserfs-list] fsync() Performance Issue

2002-04-29 Thread Toby Dickenson
On Mon, 29 Apr 2002 18:20:18 +0200, Russell Coker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Fri, 26 Apr 2002 22:28, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It's interesting to note your email address and what it implies... I'm wondering if anyone out there may have some suggestions on how to improve the performance

Re: [reiserfs-list] fsync() Performance Issue

2002-04-29 Thread Chris Mason
On Mon, 2002-04-29 at 12:20, Russell Coker wrote: On Fri, 26 Apr 2002 22:28, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It's interesting to note your email address and what it implies... I'm wondering if anyone out there may have some suggestions on how to improve the performance of a system

Re: [reiserfs-list] fsync() Performance Issue

2002-04-29 Thread Chris Mason
On Mon, 2002-04-29 at 12:32, Toby Dickenson wrote: One thing that has occurred to me (which has not been previously discussed as far as I recall) is the possibility for using sync() instead of fsync() if you can accumulate a number of files (and therefore replace many fsync()'s with one

Re: [reiserfs-list] fsync() Performance Issue

2002-04-29 Thread Matthias Andree
Toby Dickenson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: write to file A write to file B write to file C sync Be careful with this approach. Apart from syncing other processes' dirty data, sync() does not make the same guarantees as fsync() does. Barring write cache effects, fsync() only returns after all

RE: [reiserfs-list] fsync() Performance Issue

2002-04-29 Thread berthiaume_wayne
Agreed, it would be better to sync to disk after multiple files rather than serially; however, in the interest of not being concerned of a power outage during the process, one of the reason the disk cache is disabled, the choice was to fsync() each write. -Original Message-

Re: [reiserfs-list] fsync() Performance Issue

2002-04-29 Thread Valdis . Kletnieks
On Mon, 29 Apr 2002 19:56:59 +0200, Matthias Andree [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: Barring write cache effects, fsync() only returns after all blocks are on disk. While I'm not sure if and if yes, which, Linux file systems are affected, but for portable applications, be aware that sync() may

Re: [reiserfs-list] fsync() Performance Issue

2002-04-29 Thread Hans Reiser
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Mon, 29 Apr 2002 19:56:59 +0200, Matthias Andree [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: Barring write cache effects, fsync() only returns after all blocks are on disk. While I'm not sure if and if yes, which, Linux file systems are affected, but for portable applications, be