fsck out of memory
A message that is not in the archive (sent off-list or not yet received): [email protected]
Quoted 1 line
Quoted 1 line
Quoted 1 line
Quoted 1 line
Quoted 1 line
"Stephen" == Stephen C Tweedie <[email protected]> writes:
Stephen> Hi, On Tue, 2003-02-11 at 13:11, Stephan van Hienen wrote:
Stephen> I've no idea. Ben has some lb patches up at
Stephen> http://people.redhat.com/bcrl/lb/
Stephen> but there's nothing broken out against the latest lbd diffs.
Ben's patches are against a very old version of the kernel (2.4.6-pre8) and require linking against libgcc to get 64-bit division.
The main issue is 64-bit division. In the limited time I had I couldn't convince myself that I could rely on all divisors being less than 2^31 in the raid4/5 code. If you can convince yourself of that, then t's a straightforward but tedious task to make raid1, raid4 and raid5 LBD-safe.
--
Dr Peter Chubb [email protected]
You are lost in a maze of BitKeeper repositories, all almost the same.
Quoted 15 lines
Quoted 1 line
Quoted 1 line
Quoted 1 line
Quoted 1 line
Quoted 1 line
"Stephen" == Stephen C Tweedie <[email protected]> writes:
Stephen> Hi, On Tue, 2003-02-11 at 13:11, Stephan van Hienen wrote:
Stephen> I've no idea. Ben has some lb patches up at
Stephen> http://people.redhat.com/bcrl/lb/
Stephen> but there's nothing broken out against the latest lbd diffs.
Ben's patches are against a very old version of the kernel (2.4.6-pre8) and require linking against libgcc to get 64-bit division.
Quoted 5 lines
The main issue is 64-bit division. In the limited time I had I couldn't convince myself that I could rely on all divisors being less than 2^31 in the raid4/5 code. If you can convince yourself of that, then t's a straightforward but tedious task to make raid1, raid4 and raid5 LBD-safe. --
Hi,
Is this in a speed-sensitive area?
If not, you could consider 64-bit software divide functions, such as found at
http://nemesis.sourceforge.net/browse/lib/static/intmath/ix86/intmath.c.html,
which would only be used on 32-bit CPUs, of course.
--
~Randy