[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Can we make readahead more robust to package updates?

To: Development discussions related to Fedora Core <fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: Can we make readahead more robust to package updates?
From: "Jeffrey C. Ollie" <jeff@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2006 09:14:23 -0600
In-reply-to: <455971B3.7080609@xxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <604aa7910611121457i78961abbkc360777e15ce43b2@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <1163405180.15249.105.camel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20061113104852.11ee30d8@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <1163412461.15249.125.camel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20061114032324.GA26706@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <1163488526.15249.230.camel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <455971B3.7080609@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Reply-to: Development discussions related to Fedora Core <fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: fedora-devel-list-bounces@xxxxxxxxxx

On Tue, 2006-11-14 at 07:35 +0000, Dariusz J. Garbowski wrote:
>
> what about boxens, which are shutdown only on kernel 
> updates? (like mine)

Then you probably don't need readahead - readahead is primarily useful
for those people that boot their systems frequently.

Jeff

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

-- 
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list

References:
- Re: Can we make readahead more robust to package updates?
  - From: Arjan van de Ven
- Re: Can we make readahead more robust to package updates?
  - From: Dariusz J. Garbowski

Prev by Date: Re: Driver disks for FC6
Next by Date: Re: rawhide report: 20061114 changes
Previous by thread: Re: Can we make readahead more robust to package updates?
Next by thread: Re: I think, rsh is quite obsolete
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread

[Fedora Legacy Announce] [Home] [Kernel] [Fedora Legacy] [Fedora Packaging] [Fedora Desktop] [PAM] [Red Hat Development] [Red Hat 9 Bible] [Red Hat 9] [Big List of Linux Books] [Gimp] [Yosemite News]