On 12/7/2012 4:58 PM, Dave Chinner wrote: > On Fri, Dec 07, 2012 at 03:04:57PM -0600, Stan Hoeppner wrote: >> On 12/7/2012 4:16 AM, Dave Chinner wrote: >>> On Thu, Dec 06, 2012 at 03:29:33AM -0600, Stan Hoeppner wrote: >>>> On 12/5/2012 9:01 PM, Jeffrey Ellis wrote: >>>> BTW, if your goal in all of this is simply copying all the directories >>>> and files from one disk to another disk, you could have used "cp -a" and >>>> been done already. It takes longer to execute than xfsdump/xfsrestore, >>>> but given you've been at this for many days now, "cp -a" would have >>>> already completed--long ago. >>> >>> Unfortunately, using cp or rsync is not possible because the >>> filesystem has a real-time device attached to it. It's basically a >>> ~10GB data device and a ~500GB real-time device. I'd say it's from a >>> DVR or something like that, and that Jeffrey is trying to put >>> a bigger disk in the DVR.... >> >> Ah, yes. I didn't catch the RT volume. >> >> Incidentally, since the real-time feature has never been fully supported >> under Linux, why are DVR manufacturers even using it? Without GRIO and >> the XBOW ASIC the real-time volume is pretty much useless isn't it? > > The realtime volume actually has nothing to do with "real-time" at > all. What it has is a deterministic allocator (bitmap rather than > tree based) which is what you need for real-time applications (i.e. > bound worst case performance). It got called the "real-time device" > because of the applications it was used for, not because there is > anything "real-time" about it. IOWs, you don't need special > hardware to take advantage of the properties of the allocator. > > DVR manufacturers have decided to use it for 3 reasons: > > 1. Folklore says you need a RT device for > concurrent streaming workloads > 2. It's supported upstream Define "support" and "upstream". The few RT related posts over the past years generated responses, some from you I think, that the RT code isn't maintained, hasn't been for a long time. Maybe I've misunderstood. > 3. It makes it hard for windows users to replace the > harddisk in the DVR by themselves (true). > > #3 is the case we are seeing here. Yes this seems to be the case. > Cheers, > > Dave. > -- Stan _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
