IIRC, don't vanilla and -mm have some somewhat substancial internal
differences that could require manual changes? I could be wrong
though, I've never even looked at the diffs/patches for vanilla vs
-mm.
That's what I am pointing to. The patches might apply cleanly or have
a few FAILED
Islam Amer wrote:
IIRC, don't vanilla and -mm have some somewhat substancial internal
differences that could require manual changes? I could be wrong
though, I've never even looked at the diffs/patches for vanilla vs
-mm.
That's what I am pointing to. The patches might apply cleanly or have
David Masover wrote:
Islam Amer wrote:
IIRC, don't vanilla and -mm have some somewhat substancial internal
differences that could require manual changes? I could be wrong
though, I've never even looked at the diffs/patches for vanilla vs
-mm.
That's what I am pointing to. The patches
Hello all,
I just wanted to tell along a bit about my recent experiences with
reiserfs. I have been using reiser3.[56] without any glitch for more
than five years and when I got a new notebook last year, I decided to
give reiser4 a try. There even was a handy kernel patch package
available in
On Wed, Sep 28, 2005 at 03:40:12PM +0200, Fionn Behrens wrote:
Hello all,
hi,
Now, would someone please tell me where I can find a reiser4 patch that
works as stable and surprise-free as your code back then in the old ages
of 2004 and that can be applied to 2.6.13?
i'd be interested in
On Wednesday 28 September 2005 17:40, Fionn Behrens wrote:
Hello all,
Hello
I just wanted to tell along a bit about my recent experiences with
reiserfs. I have been using reiser3.[56] without any glitch for more
than five years and when I got a new notebook last year, I decided to
give
On 9/28/05, Vitaly Fertman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wednesday 28 September 2005 17:40, Fionn Behrens wrote:
Hello all,
Hello
I just wanted to tell along a bit about my recent experiences with
reiserfs. I have been using reiser3.[56] without any glitch for more
than five years and
Please? Or would I have been better off using XFS from the beginning?
Maybe this wouldn't be such a bad idea - since it would avoid such
unfriendly posts to the mailing list. Since YOU WANT help, you should
behave like its ment to be not always throughing arround how stupid
this and that is.
On Mi, 2005-09-28 at 18:25 +0400, Vitaly Fertman wrote:
2.6.11 refused to boot the
root partition, claiming that there were an inconsistency in the FS.
the disk format got new parameters and old kernels cannot understand it right.
Ah, I see. So maybe it would be a good idea if the new fs
On Mi, 2005-09-28 at 16:51 +0200, Clemens Eisserer wrote:
Man you get the best Linux-FS out there for free (I bet you did not
contribute) and all you do is nerving arround.
Sorry if you see it this way. I actually took some time and effort to
write up a post that is at least mildly
On 2005-09-28 15:40, Fionn Behrens wrote:
There was my first surprise: It was not! I spent quite some time
searching around and finally found that seemingly the only way to get
reiser4 for the latest kernel were a dozen and a half reiser4* patches
from mm. Their proper sequence of
On Wednesday 28 September 2005 19:28, Fionn Behrens wrote:
On Mi, 2005-09-28 at 18:25 +0400, Vitaly Fertman wrote:
2.6.11 refused to boot the
root partition, claiming that there were an inconsistency in the FS.
the disk format got new parameters and old kernels cannot understand it
On Mi, 2005-09-28 at 20:40 +0400, Vitaly Fertman wrote:
remember that reiser4progs-1.0.4 supports both formats, in other words
having the format updated to the new one, you are able to use new
kernelonly. If you want to move back to 2.6.10, you have to build-fs
with 1.0.3 version or
Fionn Behrens wrote:
On Mi, 2005-09-28 at 18:25 +0400, Vitaly Fertman wrote:
2.6.11 refused to boot the
root partition, claiming that there were an inconsistency in the FS.
the disk format got new parameters and old kernels cannot understand it right.
Ah, I see. So maybe it would be a
I apologize that the latest reiser4 with the cleanups requested by
Hellwig is more than a bit of a turkey (due to bugs in our cleanups).
We just now sent some patches which will improve things, but I don't yet
have confidence in the code, and will not until we go for two weeks with
no reports of
Fionn Behrens wrote:
On Mi, 2005-09-28 at 18:25 +0400, Vitaly Fertman wrote:
2.6.11 refused to boot the
root partition, claiming that there were an inconsistency in the FS.
the disk format got new parameters and old kernels cannot understand it right.
Ah, I see. So maybe it
Fionn Behrens wrote:
Because of my good experiences with ReiserFS in the past I had high
expectations. As you correctly and rightfully stated, reiser4 is
development code and that probably means I should not rely on anything.
Well, it had gone stable, sorry we let it destable.
Hans
Sorry about the full quotes, I just hit reply all in gmail and type in
my email. I thought this was how the mailing list knows which thread
to attatch my email to. Pardon my ignorance.
Yes reiser4 was very solid but now it became a little shaky.
little off topic:
BTW, Previously I had amazing
On Wed, 28 Sep 2005 22:13:52 +0300, Islam Amer said:
BTW, Previously I had amazing performance with anticipatory
IO-scheduler ( even more so with genetic anticipatory ) any comments
on this io-scheduler business, as it stirred up some commotion before.
Is the performance boost an illusion or
On Wednesday 28 September 2005 21:57, Fionn Behrens wrote:
On Mi, 2005-09-28 at 20:40 +0400, Vitaly Fertman wrote:
remember that reiser4progs-1.0.4 supports both formats, in other words
having the format updated to the new one, you are able to use new
kernelonly. If you want to move back
The performance boost for any of the provided iosched schemes can be
positive, negative, imaginary, or complex(*), depending on the actual
workload of
the system, and what reference patterns it generates.
I assumed published benchmarks are conducted under strictly controlled
conditions.
On 9/28/05, Hans Reiser [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Check out the latest cfq in the latest kernel, it is much better than
the others for most applications. Anticipatory used to be the best, but
cfq-3 is better now.
Yes I always had my eyes on the applicable parts of -ck patchset
becasue they
Islam Amer wrote:
The performance boost for any of the provided iosched schemes can be
positive, negative, imaginary, or complex(*), depending on the actual
workload of
the system, and what reference patterns it generates.
I assumed published benchmarks are conducted under strictly
On 9/28/05, Hans Reiser [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Check out the latest cfq in the latest kernel, it is much better than
the others for most applications. Anticipatory used to be the best, but
cfq-3 is better now.
When you say the best is that a general conclusion for both single
disks and
On Wed, 2005-09-28 at 17:33 -0400, studdugie wrote:
On 9/28/05, Hans Reiser [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Check out the latest cfq in the latest kernel, it is much better than
the others for most applications. Anticipatory used to be the best, but
cfq-3 is better now.
When you say the best
Islam Amer wrote:
Problem is lots of experimental patches in -mm series hurt throughput
and performance and reiser4 users have to suffer. Otherwise we have to
go through the slightly non-trivial procedure of patching the vanilla
kernel.
Non-trivial? How's this:
for i in `egrep '^reiser4'
On 9/28/05, David Masover [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Islam Amer wrote:
Problem is lots of experimental patches in -mm series hurt throughput
and performance and reiser4 users have to suffer. Otherwise we have to
go through the slightly non-trivial procedure of patching the vanilla
kernel.
27 matches
Mail list logo
