Re: The performance and behaviour of the anti-fragmentation related patches

Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]
From: Chuck Ebbert
Date: Friday, March 2, 2007 - 3:52 pm

Rik van Riel wrote:

Hundreds of disks all doing IO at once may also be needed, as
wli points out. Such systems are not readily available for testing.



-
Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]

Messages in current thread:
Re: The performance and behaviour of the anti-fragmentatio ..., Christoph Lameter, (Fri Mar 2, 10:23 am)
Re: The performance and behaviour of the anti-fragmentatio ..., Christoph Lameter, (Fri Mar 2, 11:15 am)
Re: The performance and behaviour of the anti-fragmentatio ..., Christoph Lameter, (Fri Mar 2, 12:31 pm)
Re: The performance and behaviour of the anti-fragmentatio ..., Chuck Ebbert, (Fri Mar 2, 3:52 pm)
[PATCH] : Optimizes timespec_trunc() , Eric Dumazet, (Fri Mar 2, 4:16 pm)
Re: The performance and behaviour of the anti-fragmentatio ..., William Lee Irwin III, (Fri Mar 2, 5:33 pm)
Re: The performance and behaviour of the anti-fragmentatio ..., William Lee Irwin III, (Fri Mar 2, 6:40 pm)
Re: The performance and behaviour of the anti-fragmentatio ..., William Lee Irwin III, (Fri Mar 2, 8:55 pm)
Re: The performance and behaviour of the anti-fragmentatio ..., William Lee Irwin III, (Fri Mar 2, 9:19 pm)
Re: The performance and behaviour of the anti-fragmentatio ..., Christoph Lameter, (Sat Mar 3, 10:50 am)