By: rwessel (robertwessel.delete@this.yahoo.com), September 22, 2008 9:09 pm
Room: Moderated Discussions
Doug Siebert (foo@bar.bar) on 9/22/08 wrote:
---------------------------
>Way back in the mid 90s or so I experimented with the low SCSI commands that let
>you reformat drives with larger sector sizes, and found that I gained something
>like 7% going to 1K sectors, and I think it was 13% going to 4K sectors, which was
>the largest that drive would allow (IIRC it was a 2GB Seagate)
>
>I never had the guts to actually use it that way though, even though back then
>an extra 13% of hard drive space was not be sneezed at (in today's world of super-cheap
>1TB drives, I'm afraid I would sneeze at it...) Although I was able to format a
>filesystem on that drive under HP-UX and it appeared to work normally, I figured
>there was going to be something that would break somewhere that would make me regret
>it, so I formatted it back to 512 byte sectors.
>
>So now they are finally going to do it, just when few people really need that extra space!
>
>Have they resolved all the issues with having more than 2^32 sectors for SCSI?
>For SATA? This would limit drives to 2TB when using 512 byte sectors. I suspect
>there are still some problems out there (or too many older versions of OS still
>in common use that couldn't use drives with more than 2^32 sectors) so we'll see
>4K sectors just to push out the day of reckoning a few years.
I'm not 100% sure what will break more code - disks with more than 2**32 sectors, or sectors bigger than 512 bytes. But I'd bet on the latter. There are, after all, already many systems with volumes bigger than 2**32 sectors, and almost no (mainstream) systems using volumes with sectors bigger than 512 bytes. For reference, Win2K and later all support 48-bit LBA and large volumes already (although for 48-bit LBA support a service pack* is required for Win2K and XP, and in the case of Win2K a registry setting is required). And of course Linux support is there as well.
As for hardware, BIOSs and whatnot, again, you'll have issues on both fronts. Shades of the many BIOS/DOS/FAT/ST-506/IDE/ATA/whatever limits we've seen over the years. And there again, you're probably looking at a bigger problem with 4KB sectors. Essentially all SATA HBAs and BIOSs *should* support 48-bit LBA already, but there will undoubtedly be some bugs showing up. And current PATA hardware and BIOSs ought to support 48-bit LBA, but much older hardware exists that does not.
But I'd expect the issues in either case to be relatively small.
And frankly, larger sectors ought to be an option on most drives, since 512 bytes is pretty darn small these days, and as other have pointed out, many OSs invariably do I/O in bigger chunks anyway. OTOH, reading or writing several consecutive sectors isn't really that big an imposition, if you're willing to give up a big of disk space.
Actually this was tried before - in the days when disk sizes started bumping past the 32MB FAT16 limit, a number of people did device drivers that faked larger sectors. It wasn't pretty.
*quite old SPs.
---------------------------
>Way back in the mid 90s or so I experimented with the low SCSI commands that let
>you reformat drives with larger sector sizes, and found that I gained something
>like 7% going to 1K sectors, and I think it was 13% going to 4K sectors, which was
>the largest that drive would allow (IIRC it was a 2GB Seagate)
>
>I never had the guts to actually use it that way though, even though back then
>an extra 13% of hard drive space was not be sneezed at (in today's world of super-cheap
>1TB drives, I'm afraid I would sneeze at it...) Although I was able to format a
>filesystem on that drive under HP-UX and it appeared to work normally, I figured
>there was going to be something that would break somewhere that would make me regret
>it, so I formatted it back to 512 byte sectors.
>
>So now they are finally going to do it, just when few people really need that extra space!
>
>Have they resolved all the issues with having more than 2^32 sectors for SCSI?
>For SATA? This would limit drives to 2TB when using 512 byte sectors. I suspect
>there are still some problems out there (or too many older versions of OS still
>in common use that couldn't use drives with more than 2^32 sectors) so we'll see
>4K sectors just to push out the day of reckoning a few years.
I'm not 100% sure what will break more code - disks with more than 2**32 sectors, or sectors bigger than 512 bytes. But I'd bet on the latter. There are, after all, already many systems with volumes bigger than 2**32 sectors, and almost no (mainstream) systems using volumes with sectors bigger than 512 bytes. For reference, Win2K and later all support 48-bit LBA and large volumes already (although for 48-bit LBA support a service pack* is required for Win2K and XP, and in the case of Win2K a registry setting is required). And of course Linux support is there as well.
As for hardware, BIOSs and whatnot, again, you'll have issues on both fronts. Shades of the many BIOS/DOS/FAT/ST-506/IDE/ATA/whatever limits we've seen over the years. And there again, you're probably looking at a bigger problem with 4KB sectors. Essentially all SATA HBAs and BIOSs *should* support 48-bit LBA already, but there will undoubtedly be some bugs showing up. And current PATA hardware and BIOSs ought to support 48-bit LBA, but much older hardware exists that does not.
But I'd expect the issues in either case to be relatively small.
And frankly, larger sectors ought to be an option on most drives, since 512 bytes is pretty darn small these days, and as other have pointed out, many OSs invariably do I/O in bigger chunks anyway. OTOH, reading or writing several consecutive sectors isn't really that big an imposition, if you're willing to give up a big of disk space.
Actually this was tried before - in the days when disk sizes started bumping past the 32MB FAT16 limit, a number of people did device drivers that faked larger sectors. It wasn't pretty.
*quite old SPs.
Topic | Posted By | Date |
---|---|---|
First Dunnington benchmark results | Michael S | 2008/08/19 09:54 AM |
First Dunnington benchmark results | rwessel | 2008/08/19 12:42 PM |
First Dunnington benchmark results | Aaron Apink | 2008/08/19 04:49 PM |
First Dunnington benchmark results | Joe Chang | 2008/08/19 05:28 PM |
First Dunnington benchmark results | rwessel | 2008/08/21 08:49 AM |
First Dunnington benchmark results | Joe Chang | 2008/08/21 02:10 PM |
First Dunnington benchmark results | rwessel | 2008/08/21 05:42 PM |
First Dunnington benchmark results | Joe Chang | 2008/08/21 06:12 PM |
First Dunnington benchmark results | rwessel | 2008/08/21 08:45 AM |
First Dunnington benchmark results | Aaron Spink | 2008/08/21 12:12 PM |
First Dunnington benchmark results | Joe Chang | 2008/08/21 02:15 PM |
First Dunnington benchmark results | Richard Cownie | 2008/08/20 01:59 AM |
First Dunnington benchmark results | Anders Jensen | 2008/08/20 02:26 AM |
+SSD | Anders Jensen | 2008/08/20 02:30 AM |
First Dunnington benchmark results | Richard Cownie | 2008/08/20 10:04 AM |
First Dunnington benchmark results | slacker | 2008/08/20 11:35 AM |
First Dunnington benchmark results | Doug Siebert | 2008/08/20 06:54 PM |
First Dunnington benchmark results | Richard Cownie | 2008/08/20 07:58 PM |
SLC vs. MLC | David Kanter | 2008/08/21 12:16 AM |
SLC vs. MLC | Matt Sayler | 2008/08/21 05:25 AM |
SLC vs. MLC | Richard Cownie | 2008/08/21 05:32 AM |
SLC vs. MLC | Linus Torvalds | 2008/08/21 07:39 AM |
SLC vs. MLC | Michael S | 2008/08/21 08:07 AM |
SLC vs. MLC | Linus Torvalds | 2008/08/21 08:52 AM |
SLC vs. MLC | Michael S | 2008/08/21 09:35 AM |
OLTP appliance = mainframe? (NT) | Potatoswatter | 2008/08/21 10:44 AM |
OLTP appliance = HP NonStop? | Michael S | 2008/08/21 11:03 AM |
OLTP appliance | Joe Chang | 2008/08/21 02:33 PM |
OLTP appliance | Potatoswatter | 2008/08/21 02:59 PM |
SLC vs. MLC | Aaron Spink | 2008/08/21 12:29 PM |
SLC vs. MLC | Dan Downs | 2008/08/21 10:33 AM |
SLC vs. MLC | rwessel | 2008/08/21 11:45 AM |
SLC vs. MLC | Dan Downs | 2008/08/22 07:21 AM |
SLC vs. MLC | Aaron Spink | 2008/08/21 12:34 PM |
SLC vs. MLC vs DRAM | pgerassi | 2008/08/21 11:24 AM |
SLC vs. MLC vs DRAM | David Kanter | 2008/08/22 12:31 AM |
SLC vs. MLC | Groo | 2008/08/23 11:52 AM |
SLC vs. MLC | Doug Siebert | 2008/08/21 05:14 PM |
SLC vs. MLC | Linus Torvalds | 2008/08/22 07:05 AM |
SLC vs. MLC | Doug Siebert | 2008/08/22 01:27 PM |
SLC vs. MLC | EduardoS | 2008/08/22 05:26 PM |
SSD Controller differentiation | David Kanter | 2008/08/22 08:35 PM |
SSD Controller differentiation | Doug Siebert | 2008/08/22 09:34 PM |
SSD Controller differentiation (supercaps, cost...) | anon | 2008/08/23 09:18 AM |
SSD Controller differentiation (supercaps, cost...) | Doug Siebert | 2008/08/23 09:40 AM |
SLC vs. MLC | Linus Torvalds | 2008/08/23 09:50 AM |
SLC vs. MLC | Linus Torvalds | 2008/09/08 11:03 AM |
SLC vs. MLC | Max | 2008/09/08 12:51 PM |
SLC vs. MLC | Howard Chu | 2008/09/08 08:04 PM |
SLC vs. MLC | Max | 2008/09/08 09:29 PM |
SLC vs. MLC | Howard Chu | 2008/09/08 11:12 PM |
RAM vs SSD? | Jouni Osmala | 2008/09/09 12:06 AM |
RAM vs SSD? | Max | 2008/09/12 11:51 AM |
RAM vs SSD? | EduardoS | 2008/09/12 03:27 PM |
Disk cache snapshotting | Max | 2008/09/13 07:34 AM |
Disk cache snapshotting | Howard Chu | 2008/09/14 08:58 PM |
Disk cache snapshotting | Max | 2008/09/15 11:50 AM |
SLC vs. MLC | Linus Torvalds | 2008/09/09 06:43 AM |
SLC vs. MLC | Howard Chu | 2008/09/09 08:42 AM |
SLC vs. MLC | Linus Torvalds | 2008/09/09 09:39 AM |
SLC vs. MLC | Michael S | 2008/09/09 11:29 PM |
SLC vs. MLC | anon | 2008/09/10 01:51 AM |
SLC vs. MLC | Michael S | 2008/09/10 02:09 AM |
SLC vs. MLC | Max | 2008/09/10 03:48 AM |
SLC vs. MLC | Michael S | 2008/09/10 04:52 AM |
SLC vs. MLC | Max | 2008/09/10 05:28 AM |
SLC vs. MLC | Matt Sayler | 2008/09/10 05:21 AM |
SLC vs. MLC | Michael S | 2008/09/10 08:17 AM |
SLC vs. MLC | anon | 2008/09/10 05:29 AM |
SLC vs. MLC | Michael S | 2008/09/10 08:23 AM |
SLC vs. MLC | Matt Sayler | 2008/09/10 09:45 AM |
SLC vs. MLC | Linus Torvalds | 2008/09/10 06:25 AM |
SLC vs. MLC | Michael S | 2008/09/10 08:54 AM |
SLC vs. MLC | Linus Torvalds | 2008/09/10 09:31 AM |
Physical vs effective write latency | Max | 2008/09/11 06:35 AM |
Physical vs effective write latency | Linus Torvalds | 2008/09/11 08:06 AM |
Physical vs effective write latency | Linus Torvalds | 2008/09/11 08:48 AM |
Physical vs effective write latency | Linus Torvalds | 2008/09/11 10:39 AM |
Physical vs effective write latency | Mark Roulo | 2008/09/11 11:18 AM |
Physical vs effective write latency | Doug Siebert | 2008/09/11 04:59 PM |
Physical vs effective write latency | Linus Torvalds | 2008/09/11 06:16 PM |
Physical vs effective write latency | Doug Siebert | 2008/09/11 09:28 PM |
Physical vs effective write latency | MS | 2009/02/03 02:06 PM |
SLC vs. MLC - the trick to latency | Anonymous | 2008/09/11 11:39 AM |
SLC vs. MLC - the trick to latency | anon | 2008/09/11 12:17 PM |
SLC vs. MLC - the trick to latency | Anonymous | 2008/09/11 04:25 PM |
SLC vs. MLC - the trick to latency | Doug Siebert | 2008/09/11 04:47 PM |
SLC vs. MLC - the trick to latency | rwessel | 2008/09/11 05:01 PM |
SLC vs. MLC - the trick to latency | anon | 2008/09/11 11:00 PM |
SLC vs. MLC - the trick to latency | Anonymous | 2008/09/12 07:52 PM |
SLC vs. MLC - the trick to latency | anon | 2008/09/13 09:06 AM |
SLC vs. MLC - the trick to latency | Ungo | 2008/09/15 11:18 AM |
To SSD or not? One lady's perspective | David Kanter | 2008/09/22 12:12 AM |
To SSD or not? One lady's perspective | Howard Chu | 2008/09/22 03:02 AM |
To SSD or not? Real data.. | Linus Torvalds | 2008/09/22 06:33 AM |
To SSD or not? Real data.. | Ungo | 2008/09/22 11:27 AM |
4K sectors | Wes Felter | 2008/09/22 05:03 PM |
4K sectors | Daniel | 2008/09/22 09:31 PM |
Reasons for >512 byte sectors | Doug Siebert | 2008/09/22 08:38 PM |
Reasons for >512 byte sectors | rwessel | 2008/09/22 09:09 PM |
Reasons for >512 byte sectors | Howard Chu | 2008/09/23 01:50 AM |
Reasons for >512 byte sectors | Daniel | 2008/09/22 09:40 PM |
Reasons for >512 byte sectors | rwessel | 2008/09/23 08:11 AM |
Reasons for >512 byte sectors | Daniel | 2008/09/23 11:10 AM |
HDD long sector size availability | Etienne Lehnart | 2008/09/23 04:32 AM |
HDD long sector size availability | rwessel | 2008/09/23 08:19 AM |
HDD long sector size availability | Etienne Lehnart | 2008/09/23 01:17 PM |
To SSD or not? Real data.. | Jouni Osmala | 2008/09/22 10:16 PM |
To SSD or not? One lady's perspective | Wes Felter | 2008/09/22 10:25 AM |
How should SSDs be engineered into systems? | Rob Thorpe | 2008/09/22 01:01 PM |
How should SSDs be engineered into systems? | Matt Craighead | 2008/09/23 05:59 PM |
How should SSDs be engineered into systems? | Matt Sayler | 2008/09/24 03:17 AM |
ATA/SCSIS, Write Flushes and Asych Filesystems | TruePath | 2009/01/25 03:44 AM |
SLC vs. MLC - the trick to latency | Michael S | 2008/09/12 03:58 AM |
overlapped erase and read | Michael S | 2008/09/12 03:59 AM |
overlapped erase and read | David W. Hess | 2008/09/12 08:56 AM |
overlapped erase and read | Anonymous | 2008/09/12 07:45 PM |
overlapped erase and read | Jouni Osmala | 2008/09/12 10:56 PM |
overlapped erase and read | Michael S | 2008/09/13 10:29 AM |
overlapped erase and read | Michael S | 2008/09/13 11:09 AM |
overlapped erase and read | Linus Torvalds | 2008/09/13 01:05 PM |
SLC vs. MLC - the trick to latency | Doug Siebert | 2008/09/11 04:31 PM |
SLC vs. MLC | EduardoS | 2008/09/08 01:07 PM |
SLC vs. MLC | Linus Torvalds | 2008/09/08 01:30 PM |
SLC vs. MLC | EduardoS | 2008/09/08 03:01 PM |
SSD and RAID | Joe Chang | 2008/09/08 06:42 PM |
SSD and RAID | Doug Siebert | 2008/09/08 08:46 PM |
SSD and RAID | Aaron Spink | 2008/09/09 03:27 PM |
SSD and RAID | Groo | 2008/09/10 12:02 PM |
SLC vs. MLC | Joern Engel | 2009/01/06 09:22 AM |
SLC vs. MLC | Linus Torvalds | 2009/01/06 01:04 PM |
SLC vs. MLC | Joern Engel | 2009/01/06 02:24 PM |
SLC vs. MLC | rwessel | 2009/01/06 03:47 PM |
SLC vs. MLC | anonymous | 2009/01/06 04:17 PM |
SLC vs. MLC | rwessel | 2009/01/06 04:58 PM |
SLC vs. MLC | Joern Engel | 2009/01/06 11:35 PM |
SLC vs. MLC | Linus Torvalds | 2009/01/06 04:45 PM |
SLC vs. MLC | rwessel | 2009/01/06 05:09 PM |
SLC vs. MLC | Linus Torvalds | 2009/01/06 06:47 PM |
SLC vs. MLC | Joern Engel | 2009/01/06 11:26 PM |
SLC vs. MLC | anon | 2009/01/06 07:23 PM |
SLC vs. MLC | Joern Engel | 2009/01/06 11:52 PM |
SLC vs. MLC | anon | 2009/01/07 01:34 AM |
SLC vs. MLC | IntelUser2000 | 2009/01/07 06:43 AM |
SLC vs. MLC | Linus Torvalds | 2009/01/07 09:28 AM |
drop data filesystem semantic | Doug Siebert | 2009/01/09 11:21 AM |
FTL and FS | iz | 2009/01/09 06:49 PM |
FTL and FS | Linus Torvalds | 2009/01/09 08:53 PM |
FTL and FS | iz | 2009/01/10 01:09 AM |
FTL and FS | Michael S | 2009/01/10 02:19 PM |
compiling large programs | iz | 2009/01/10 04:51 PM |
compiling large programs | Linus Torvalds | 2009/01/10 06:58 PM |
compiling large programs | peter | 2009/01/11 04:30 AM |
compiling large programs | Andi Kleen | 2009/01/11 12:03 PM |
The File Abstraction | TruePath | 2009/01/25 05:45 AM |
The File Abstraction | Howard Chu | 2009/01/25 12:49 PM |
The File Abstraction | Linus Torvalds | 2009/01/26 08:23 AM |
The File Abstraction | Michael S | 2009/01/26 12:39 PM |
The File Abstraction | Linus Torvalds | 2009/01/26 01:31 PM |
The File Abstraction | Dean Kent | 2009/01/26 02:06 PM |
The File Abstraction | Linus Torvalds | 2009/01/26 03:29 PM |
The File Abstraction | Mark Christiansen | 2009/01/27 08:24 AM |
The File Abstraction | Mark Christiansen | 2009/01/27 09:14 AM |
The File Abstraction | Linus Torvalds | 2009/01/27 09:15 AM |
The File Abstraction | slacker | 2009/01/27 10:20 AM |
The File Abstraction | Linus Torvalds | 2009/01/27 12:16 PM |
Attributes All The Way Down | Mark Christiansen | 2009/01/27 01:17 PM |
The File Abstraction | slacker | 2009/01/27 04:25 PM |
The File Abstraction | Linus Torvalds | 2009/01/28 07:17 AM |
The File Abstraction: API thoughts | Carlie Coats | 2009/01/28 08:35 AM |
The File Abstraction | slacker | 2009/01/28 09:09 AM |
The File Abstraction | Linus Torvalds | 2009/01/28 12:44 PM |
Programs already 'hide' their metadata in the bytestream, unbeknownst to users | anon | 2009/01/28 08:28 PM |
The File Abstraction | slacker | 2009/01/29 09:39 AM |
The File Abstraction | Linus Torvalds | 2009/01/29 10:08 AM |
The File Abstraction | Dean Kent | 2009/01/29 10:49 AM |
The File Abstraction | Howard Chu | 2009/01/29 01:58 PM |
The File Abstraction | rwessel | 2009/01/29 03:23 PM |
Extended Attributes in Action | slacker | 2009/01/29 02:05 PM |
Extended Attributes in Action | stubar | 2009/01/29 03:49 PM |
Extended Attributes in Action | Linus Torvalds | 2009/01/29 04:15 PM |
Like Duh | anon | 2009/01/29 06:42 PM |
Like Duh | anon | 2009/01/29 08:15 PM |
Like Duh | anon | 2009/02/01 06:18 PM |
Double Duh. | Anonymous | 2009/02/01 09:58 PM |
Double Duh. | anon | 2009/02/02 01:08 AM |
Double Duh. | Anonymous | 2009/02/02 04:11 PM |
Double Duh. | anon | 2009/02/02 06:33 PM |
Like Duh | David Kanter | 2009/02/01 10:05 PM |
Like Duh | peter | 2009/02/01 10:55 PM |
Like Duh | anon | 2009/02/02 12:55 AM |
Xattrs, Solar power, regulation and politics | Rob Thorpe | 2009/02/02 03:36 AM |
Terminology seems too fuzzy to me | hobold | 2009/02/02 05:14 AM |
Terminology seems too fuzzy to me | rwessel | 2009/02/02 11:33 AM |
good summary | Michael S | 2009/02/03 01:41 AM |
good summary | Mark Christiansen | 2009/02/03 08:57 AM |
good summary | Howard Chu | 2009/02/03 09:21 AM |
good summary | Mark Christiansen | 2009/02/03 10:18 AM |
good summary | Howard Chu | 2009/02/03 11:00 AM |
good summary | Mark Christiansen | 2009/02/03 11:36 AM |
good summary | RagingDragon | 2009/02/03 09:39 PM |
good summary | rwessel | 2009/02/03 10:03 PM |
good summary | RagingDragon | 2009/02/03 10:46 PM |
Terminology seems too fuzzy to me | slacker | 2009/02/04 04:06 PM |
Terminology seems too fuzzy to me | Michael S | 2009/02/05 12:05 AM |
Terminology seems too fuzzy to me | Ungo | 2009/02/05 12:15 PM |
Terminology seems too fuzzy to me | slacker | 2009/02/05 01:19 PM |
Terminology seems too fuzzy to me | Howard Chu | 2009/02/05 03:44 PM |
Like Duh | iz | 2009/01/30 01:03 AM |
EAs (security labels) hosed me badly | anon | 2009/01/30 08:48 PM |
Extended Attributes in Action | RagingDragon | 2009/01/29 08:31 PM |
Extended Attributes in Action | anonymous | 2009/01/29 07:13 PM |
Extended Attributes in Action | Howard Chu | 2009/01/29 08:38 PM |
Extended Attributes in Action | slacker | 2009/01/30 10:24 AM |
Extended Attributes in Action | anon | 2009/01/30 04:50 PM |
Extended Attributes in Action | Etienne Lehnart | 2009/01/29 11:22 PM |
Extended Attributes in Action | Rob Thorpe | 2009/01/30 11:39 AM |
Extended Attributes in Action | slacker | 2009/01/30 12:16 PM |
Extended Attributes in Action | anon | 2009/01/30 05:03 PM |
Extended Attributes in Action | Howard Chu | 2009/01/30 10:22 PM |
Extended Attributes in Action | rwessel | 2009/01/30 11:08 PM |
Extended Attributes in Action | anonymous | 2009/01/30 11:22 PM |
Extended Attributes in Action | rwessel | 2009/01/30 11:56 PM |
Scaling | Dean Kent | 2009/01/31 08:04 AM |
Scaling | Rob Thorpe | 2009/02/02 01:39 AM |
Scaling | rwessel | 2009/02/02 10:41 AM |
Scaling | Howard Chu | 2009/02/02 11:30 AM |
Scaling | Dean Kent | 2009/02/02 01:27 PM |
Scaling | Rob Thorpe | 2009/02/03 04:08 AM |
Scaling | Dean Kent | 2009/02/03 06:38 AM |
Scaling | rwessel | 2009/02/03 01:34 PM |
Scaling | RagingDragon | 2009/02/03 09:46 PM |
in defense of software that does not scale | Matt Sayler | 2009/02/03 10:27 AM |
in defense of software that does not scale | Howard Chu | 2009/02/03 11:03 AM |
in defense of software that does not scale | Matt Sayler | 2009/02/03 11:17 AM |
in defense of software that does not scale | RagingDragon | 2009/02/03 10:00 PM |
in defense of software that does not scale | Michael S | 2009/02/04 05:46 AM |
in defense of software that does not scale | RagingDragon | 2009/02/04 08:33 PM |
in defense of software that does not scale | Dean Kent | 2009/02/03 11:17 AM |
in defense of software that does not scale | Matt Sayler | 2009/02/03 11:24 AM |
in defense of software that does not scale | Vincent Diepeveen | 2009/02/04 09:43 AM |
in defense of software that does not scale | rwessel | 2009/02/03 01:44 PM |
in defense of software that does not scale | anon | 2009/02/04 01:35 AM |
in defense of software that does not scale | Carlie Coats | 2009/02/04 04:24 AM |
Scaling with time vs. scaling from the beginning. | mpx | 2009/02/05 12:57 AM |
Extended Attributes in Action | Michael S | 2009/01/31 09:33 AM |
Extended Attributes in Action | anon | 2009/01/31 09:37 PM |
Extended Attributes in Action | JasonB | 2009/01/31 07:11 AM |
Extended Attributes in Action | Howard Chu | 2009/01/31 10:43 AM |
Extended Attributes in Action | JasonB | 2009/01/31 03:37 PM |
Extended Attributes in Action | Howard Chu | 2009/02/02 01:42 PM |
Extended Attributes in Action | Howard Chu | 2009/02/02 01:44 PM |
The File Abstraction | Rob Thorpe | 2009/01/27 10:20 AM |
The File Abstraction | Howard Chu | 2009/01/26 11:28 PM |
The File Abstraction | Michael S | 2009/01/27 02:00 AM |
The File Abstraction | Dean Kent | 2009/01/27 07:30 AM |
The File Abstraction | Andi Kleen | 2009/01/27 01:05 AM |
SLC vs. MLC | Michel | 2009/01/12 05:54 PM |
SLC vs. MLC | Linus Torvalds | 2009/01/12 06:38 PM |
SLC vs. MLC | rwessel | 2009/01/12 11:52 PM |
SLC vs. MLC | Ungo | 2009/01/13 02:04 PM |
SLC vs. MLC | Wes Felter | 2009/01/13 04:42 PM |
SLC vs. MLC | TruePath | 2009/01/25 04:05 AM |
SLC vs. MLC | Ungo | 2008/08/21 11:54 AM |
SLC vs. MLC | Aaron Spink | 2008/08/21 12:20 PM |
MLC vs. SLC | Michael S | 2008/08/21 07:57 AM |
First Dunnington benchmark results | rwessel | 2008/08/21 09:40 AM |
First Dunnington benchmark results | Aaron Spink | 2008/08/21 02:18 AM |
First Dunnington benchmark results | Etienne Lehnart | 2008/08/20 03:38 AM |
Will x86 dominate big iron? | Tom W | 2008/08/19 09:10 PM |
Will x86 dominate big iron? | Jesper Frimann | 2008/08/19 11:28 PM |
Will x86 dominate big iron? | Tom W | 2008/08/20 02:42 PM |
Will x86 dominate big iron? | David Kanter | 2008/08/21 12:13 AM |
Will x86 dominate big iron? | Joe Chang | 2008/08/21 05:54 AM |
Will x86 dominate big iron? | asdf | 2008/08/22 12:18 PM |
Will x86 dominate big iron? | Dean Kent | 2008/08/22 06:54 PM |
Will x86 dominate big iron? | Jesper Frimann | 2008/08/22 08:48 AM |
Will x86 dominate big iron? | Tom W | 2008/08/24 12:06 AM |
Will x86 dominate big iron? | Michael S | 2008/08/24 03:19 AM |
Will x86 dominate big iron? | Dean Kent | 2008/08/24 08:30 AM |
Will x86 dominate big iron? | Paul | 2008/08/24 10:16 AM |
Will x86 dominate big iron? | Dean Kent | 2008/08/24 11:37 AM |
Will x86 dominate big iron? | Michael S | 2008/08/24 11:53 PM |
Will x86 dominate big iron? | someone | 2008/08/22 09:19 AM |
Will x86 dominate big iron? | aaron spink | 2008/08/23 01:56 AM |
Will x86 dominate big iron? | Michael S | 2008/08/23 08:58 AM |
Will x86 dominate big iron? | someone | 2008/08/23 12:51 PM |
Will x86 dominate big iron? | someone | 2008/08/23 12:55 PM |
Will x86 dominate big iron? | Aaron Spink | 2008/08/23 03:52 PM |
Will x86 dominate big iron? | anonymous | 2008/08/23 04:28 PM |
Will x86 dominate big iron? | Dean Kent | 2008/08/23 05:12 PM |
Off road and topic | EduardoS | 2008/08/23 05:28 PM |
Will x86 dominate big iron? | someone | 2008/08/23 05:26 PM |
Will x86 dominate big iron? | Dean Kent | 2008/08/23 08:40 PM |
Will x86 dominate big iron? | anonymous | 2008/08/24 12:46 AM |
Off road and topic | David W. Hess | 2008/08/24 02:24 AM |
Off road and topic | Aaron Spink | 2008/08/24 03:14 AM |
Beckton vs. Dunnington | Mr. Camel | 2008/08/22 05:30 AM |
Beckton vs. Dunnington | jokerman | 2008/08/22 11:12 AM |
Beckton vs. Dunnington | Mr. Camel | 2009/05/29 09:16 AM |