From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Fri, 19 Jan 2001 07:00:27 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Fri, 19 Jan 2001 07:00:17 -0500 Received: from colorfullife.com ([216.156.138.34]:40203 "EHLO colorfullife.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Fri, 19 Jan 2001 07:00:03 -0500 Message-ID: <3A682C3C.B0F7E67E@colorfullife.com> Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2001 12:59:56 +0100 From: Manfred Spraul X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.75 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.2.16-22 i586) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Holger Kiehl CC: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: More filesystem corruption under 2.4.1-pre8 and SW Raid5 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Holger Kiehl wrote: > > I'm running your test with 48 MB ram, 12500 files, 9 processes in a 156 > > MB partition (swapoff, here is the test partition ;-). > > With 192MB Ram I don't see the corruption. > > > I am not sure if I understand you correctly: with 48MB you do get > corruption and with 192MB not? And if you do see corruption are you > using SW Raid, SMP? Sorry for the confusion: The 'mem=48M' test was still running when I wrote the last mail. I don't see a corruption - neither with 192MB ram nor with 48 MB ram. SMP, no SW Raid, ext2, but only 1024 byte/file and only 12500 files/directory. > > With 10000 I also had no problem, my next step was 50000. > 10000 files need ~180MB, that fit's into the cache. 50000 files need ~900MB, that doesn't fit into the cache. I'd try 10000 files, but now with "mem=64m" -- Manfred - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/