<?xml version="1.0" ?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
<channel>
  <atom:link rel="search"
    href="http://www.nnseek.com/nnseek_com_os_descr.xml"
    type="application/opensearchdescription+xml"
    title="Search in newsgroups" />
  <title>Search result for Writeback</title>
  <link>http://www.nnseek.com/Writeback_s.html</link>
  <description>Search results for Writeback</description>
  <lastBuildDate>Wed, 05 Mar 2008 23:59:25 PST</lastBuildDate>
  

  <item>
    <title><![CDATA[Re: Zagniezdzenie na stale programu -- da sie?]]></title>
    <guid>http://www.nnseek.com/e/pl.comp.os.linux.programowanie/zagniezdzenie_na_stale_programu_da_sie_100318722m.html</guid>
    <link>http://www.nnseek.com/e/pl.comp.os.linux.programowanie/zagniezdzenie_na_stale_programu_da_sie_100318722m.html</link>
    <description><![CDATA[...usd: 161   Cold: hi:   62, btch:  15 usd:   14  Active:105996 inactive:1367 dirty:0 <b>writeback</b>:0 unstable:0   free:1085 slab:1782 mapped:858 pagetables:387 bounce:0  DMA free:1800kB min:96kB...pages of HIGHMEM  2061 reserved pages  16280 pages shared  0 pages swap cached  0 pages dirty  0 pages <b>writeback</b>  858 pages mapped  1782 pages slab  387 pages pagetables  Out of memory: kill process 6683 (kill) ...<br><br>
    <table border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0">
      <tr>
        <td width="30">&nbsp;</td>
        <td>Posted In: <a href="http://www.nnseek.com/e/pl.comp.os.linux.programowanie/">pl.comp.os.linux.programowanie</a></td>
        <td width="20">&nbsp;</td>
        <td><a href="http://www.nnseek.com/e/pl.comp.os.linux.programowanie/zagniezdzenie_na_stale_programu_da_sie_98327042t.html">no comments</a></td>
        <td width="20">&nbsp;</td>
        <td><a href="http://www.nnseek.com/e/pl.comp.os.linux.programowanie/zagniezdzenie_na_stale_programu_da_sie_100318722m.html">Reply</a></td>
      </tr></table>]]></description>
    <pubDate>Wed, 05 Mar 2008 23:59:25 PST</pubDate>
  </item>
  <item>
    <title><![CDATA[Re: CPAN fail report for Sys::Statistics::Linux]]></title>
    <guid>http://www.nnseek.com/e/perl.cpan.testers/cpan_fail_report_for_sys_statistics_linux_349668099m.html</guid>
    <link>http://www.nnseek.com/e/perl.cpan.testers/cpan_fail_report_for_sys_statistics_linux_349668099m.html</link>
    <description><![CDATA[... kB  Cached:         401068 kB  SwapCached:        168 kB  Active:         980580 kB  Inactive:       318308 kB  SwapTotal:     2570320 kB  SwapFree:      2567948 kB  Dirty:            1364 kB  <b>Writeback</b>:           0 kB  AnonPages:      691812 kB  Mapped:          40528 kB  Slab:           460080 kB  SReclaimable:   435760 kB  SUnreclaim:      24320 kB  PageTables:      10768 kB  NFS_Unstable:...<br><br>
    <table border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0">
      <tr>
        <td width="30">&nbsp;</td>
        <td>Posted In: <a href="http://www.nnseek.com/e/perl.cpan.testers/">perl.cpan.testers</a></td>
        <td width="20">&nbsp;</td>
        <td><a href="http://www.nnseek.com/e/perl.cpan.testers/cpan_fail_report_for_sys_statistics_linux_349668099t.html"><b>1</b> Comment</a></td>
        <td width="20">&nbsp;</td>
        <td><a href="http://www.nnseek.com/e/perl.cpan.testers/cpan_fail_report_for_sys_statistics_linux_349668099m.html">Reply</a></td>
      </tr></table>]]></description>
    <pubDate>Thu, 10 Jan 2008 02:23:18 PST</pubDate>
  </item>
  <item>
    <title><![CDATA[AMD64-generic doesn't see all 4GB RAM?]]></title>
    <guid>http://www.nnseek.com/e/linux.debian.ports.x86-64/amd64_generic_doesn_t_see_all_4gb_ram_27264771m.html</guid>
    <link>http://www.nnseek.com/e/linux.debian.ports.x86-64/amd64_generic_doesn_t_see_all_4gb_ram_27264771m.html</link>
    <description><![CDATA[...  HighTotal:           0 kB  HighFree:            0 kB  LowTotal:      3350660 kB  LowFree:       3142864 kB  SwapTotal:    23101376 kB  SwapFree:     23101376 kB  Dirty:             228 kB  <b>Writeback</b>:           0 kB  Mapped:          11700 kB  Slab:            17896 kB  CommitLimit:  24776704 kB  Committed_AS:    19272 kB  PageTables:        960 kB  VmallocTotal: 34359738367 kB  VmallocUsed:     ...<br><br>
    <table border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0">
      <tr>
        <td width="30">&nbsp;</td>
        <td>Posted In: <a href="http://www.nnseek.com/e/linux.debian.ports.x86-64/">linux.debian.ports.x86-64</a></td>
        <td width="20">&nbsp;</td>
        <td><a href="http://www.nnseek.com/e/linux.debian.ports.x86-64/amd64_generic_doesn_t_see_all_4gb_ram_27264771t.html"><b>33</b> Comments</a></td>
        <td width="20">&nbsp;</td>
        <td><a href="http://www.nnseek.com/e/linux.debian.ports.x86-64/amd64_generic_doesn_t_see_all_4gb_ram_27264771m.html">Reply</a></td>
      </tr></table>]]></description>
    <pubDate>Mon, 06 Nov 2006 04:10:09 PST</pubDate>
  </item>
  <item>
    <title><![CDATA[Re: Database files and power failures]]></title>
    <guid>http://www.nnseek.com/e/microsoft.public.windowsxp.embedded/database_files_and_power_failures_25626627m.html</guid>
    <link>http://www.nnseek.com/e/microsoft.public.windowsxp.embedded/database_files_and_power_failures_25626627m.html</link>
    <description><![CDATA[On Thu, 7 Sep 2006 07:06:02 -0700, Davide  <Davide@<a href="http://discussions.microsoft.com" rel="nofollow" class="url" target="_blank">discussions.microsoft.com</a>> wrote:    OK. I understand the mechanisms of <b>writeback</b> and so.  I understand the advantages of EWF, but on the partition where I have the   MDF file I cannot enable EWF because all the database changes will be lost   after restart.    IIRC, you said in your initial message that you're using CF - CompactFlash?    ...<br><br>
    <table border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0">
      <tr>
        <td width="30">&nbsp;</td>
        <td>Posted In: <a href="http://www.nnseek.com/e/microsoft.public.windowsxp.embedded/">microsoft.public.windowsxp.embedded</a></td>
        <td width="20">&nbsp;</td>
        <td><a href="http://www.nnseek.com/e/microsoft.public.windowsxp.embedded/database_files_and_power_failures_25584387t.html">no comments</a></td>
        <td width="20">&nbsp;</td>
        <td><a href="http://www.nnseek.com/e/microsoft.public.windowsxp.embedded/database_files_and_power_failures_25626627m.html">Reply</a></td>
      </tr></table>]]></description>
    <pubDate>Mon, 11 Sep 2006 07:12:20 PDT</pubDate>
  </item>
  <item>
    <title><![CDATA[Re: Database files and power failures]]></title>
    <guid>http://www.nnseek.com/e/microsoft.public.windowsxp.embedded/database_files_and_power_failures_25616387m.html</guid>
    <link>http://www.nnseek.com/e/microsoft.public.windowsxp.embedded/database_files_and_power_failures_25616387m.html</link>
    <description><![CDATA["Davide" <Davide@<a href="http://discussions.microsoft.com" rel="nofollow" class="url" target="_blank">discussions.microsoft.com</a>> wrote in message   news:31B132FA-C379-4B5B-B881-EE6523D2782D@<a href="http://microsoft.com" rel="nofollow" class="url" target="_blank">microsoft.com</a>...  OK. I understand the mechanisms of <b>writeback</b> and so.  I understand the advantages of EWF, but on the partition where I have the  MDF file I cannot enable EWF because all the database changes will be lost  after restart.  I appreciate the suggestion to use NTFS ...<br><br>
    <table border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0">
      <tr>
        <td width="30">&nbsp;</td>
        <td>Posted In: <a href="http://www.nnseek.com/e/microsoft.public.windowsxp.embedded/">microsoft.public.windowsxp.embedded</a></td>
        <td width="20">&nbsp;</td>
        <td><a href="http://www.nnseek.com/e/microsoft.public.windowsxp.embedded/database_files_and_power_failures_25584387t.html">no comments</a></td>
        <td width="20">&nbsp;</td>
        <td><a href="http://www.nnseek.com/e/microsoft.public.windowsxp.embedded/database_files_and_power_failures_25616387m.html">Reply</a></td>
      </tr></table>]]></description>
    <pubDate>Thu, 07 Sep 2006 10:57:42 PDT</pubDate>
  </item>
  <item>
    <title><![CDATA[Re: Open hardware microprocessor specification RFC]]></title>
    <guid>http://www.nnseek.com/e/gnu.emacs.help/open_hardware_microprocessor_specification_rfc_188673m.html</guid>
    <link>http://www.nnseek.com/e/gnu.emacs.help/open_hardware_microprocessor_specification_rfc_188673m.html</link>
    <description><![CDATA[dma writes to memory thru <b>writeback</b> cache to ease on chip complexity  issues, stall of write back may in worst case propergate to regset  being written flag, which may propergate to regset unavail for reg pass  stall, which may lead to full stal if all regset stall.??    cheers    Me thinks KR561C part number /version change in order, with historic  lax documents A and B.    implementation ...<br><br>
    <table border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0">
      <tr>
        <td width="30">&nbsp;</td>
        <td>Posted In: <a href="http://www.nnseek.com/e/gnu.emacs.help/">gnu.emacs.help</a></td>
        <td width="20">&nbsp;</td>
        <td><a href="http://www.nnseek.com/e/gnu.emacs.help/open_hardware_microprocessor_specification_rfc_184833t.html">no comments</a></td>
        <td width="20">&nbsp;</td>
        <td><a href="http://www.nnseek.com/e/gnu.emacs.help/open_hardware_microprocessor_specification_rfc_188673m.html">Reply</a></td>
      </tr></table>]]></description>
    <pubDate>Thu, 20 Jul 2006 06:04:47 PDT</pubDate>
  </item>
  <item>
    <title><![CDATA[Re: Open hardware microprocessor specification RFC]]></title>
    <guid>http://www.nnseek.com/e/gnu.emacs.help/open_hardware_microprocessor_specification_rfc_294401m.html</guid>
    <link>http://www.nnseek.com/e/gnu.emacs.help/open_hardware_microprocessor_specification_rfc_294401m.html</link>
    <description><![CDATA[... what I have seen reported, it does not take much stack to  make Forth work effectively.  A hardware stack would run much faster  than DRAM and not mess with the cache.      thinking about it, active rows has the problems of write back,  sheduling and this complicates the design. i say it would be more  efficient to spend the chip area on expanding the <b>writeback</b> cache to  256 elements.  <br><br>
    <table border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0">
      <tr>
        <td width="30">&nbsp;</td>
        <td>Posted In: <a href="http://www.nnseek.com/e/gnu.emacs.help/">gnu.emacs.help</a></td>
        <td width="20">&nbsp;</td>
        <td><a href="http://www.nnseek.com/e/gnu.emacs.help/open_hardware_microprocessor_specification_rfc_294401t.html">no comments</a></td>
        <td width="20">&nbsp;</td>
        <td><a href="http://www.nnseek.com/e/gnu.emacs.help/open_hardware_microprocessor_specification_rfc_294401m.html">Reply</a></td>
      </tr></table>]]></description>
    <pubDate>Wed, 12 Jul 2006 07:39:20 PDT</pubDate>
  </item>
  <item>
    <title><![CDATA[Re: Open hardware microprocessor specification RFC]]></title>
    <guid>http://www.nnseek.com/e/gnu.emacs.help/open_hardware_microprocessor_specification_rfc_312577m.html</guid>
    <link>http://www.nnseek.com/e/gnu.emacs.help/open_hardware_microprocessor_specification_rfc_312577m.html</link>
    <description><![CDATA[... what I have seen reported, it does not take much stack to  make Forth work effectively.  A hardware stack would run much faster  than DRAM and not mess with the cache.      thinking about it, active rows has the problems of write back,  sheduling and this complicates the design. i say it would be more  efficient to spend the chip area on expanding the <b>writeback</b> cache to  256 elements.  <br><br>
    <table border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0">
      <tr>
        <td width="30">&nbsp;</td>
        <td>Posted In: <a href="http://www.nnseek.com/e/gnu.emacs.help/">gnu.emacs.help</a></td>
        <td width="20">&nbsp;</td>
        <td><a href="http://www.nnseek.com/e/gnu.emacs.help/open_hardware_microprocessor_specification_rfc_312577t.html">no comments</a></td>
        <td width="20">&nbsp;</td>
        <td><a href="http://www.nnseek.com/e/gnu.emacs.help/open_hardware_microprocessor_specification_rfc_312577m.html">Reply</a></td>
      </tr></table>]]></description>
    <pubDate>Wed, 12 Jul 2006 07:39:20 PDT</pubDate>
  </item>
  <item>
    <title><![CDATA[Re: Open hardware microprocessor specification RFC]]></title>
    <guid>http://www.nnseek.com/e/comp.sys.mac.comm/open_hardware_microprocessor_specification_rfc_334336m.html</guid>
    <link>http://www.nnseek.com/e/comp.sys.mac.comm/open_hardware_microprocessor_specification_rfc_334336m.html</link>
    <description><![CDATA[... what I have seen reported, it does not take much stack to  make Forth work effectively.  A hardware stack would run much faster  than DRAM and not mess with the cache.      thinking about it, active rows has the problems of write back,  sheduling and this complicates the design. i say it would be more  efficient to spend the chip area on expanding the <b>writeback</b> cache to  256 elements.  <br><br>
    <table border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0">
      <tr>
        <td width="30">&nbsp;</td>
        <td>Posted In: <a href="http://www.nnseek.com/e/comp.sys.mac.comm/">comp.sys.mac.comm</a></td>
        <td width="20">&nbsp;</td>
        <td><a href="http://www.nnseek.com/e/comp.sys.mac.comm/open_hardware_microprocessor_specification_rfc_334336t.html">no comments</a></td>
        <td width="20">&nbsp;</td>
        <td><a href="http://www.nnseek.com/e/comp.sys.mac.comm/open_hardware_microprocessor_specification_rfc_334336m.html">Reply</a></td>
      </tr></table>]]></description>
    <pubDate>Wed, 12 Jul 2006 07:39:20 PDT</pubDate>
  </item>
  <item>
    <title><![CDATA[Re: Open hardware microprocessor specification RFC]]></title>
    <guid>http://www.nnseek.com/e/gnu.emacs.help/open_hardware_microprocessor_specification_rfc_346113m.html</guid>
    <link>http://www.nnseek.com/e/gnu.emacs.help/open_hardware_microprocessor_specification_rfc_346113m.html</link>
    <description><![CDATA[... what I have seen reported, it does not take much stack to  make Forth work effectively.  A hardware stack would run much faster  than DRAM and not mess with the cache.      thinking about it, active rows has the problems of write back,  sheduling and this complicates the design. i say it would be more  efficient to spend the chip area on expanding the <b>writeback</b> cache to  256 elements.  <br><br>
    <table border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0">
      <tr>
        <td width="30">&nbsp;</td>
        <td>Posted In: <a href="http://www.nnseek.com/e/gnu.emacs.help/">gnu.emacs.help</a></td>
        <td width="20">&nbsp;</td>
        <td><a href="http://www.nnseek.com/e/gnu.emacs.help/open_hardware_microprocessor_specification_rfc_346113t.html"><b>5</b> Comments</a></td>
        <td width="20">&nbsp;</td>
        <td><a href="http://www.nnseek.com/e/gnu.emacs.help/open_hardware_microprocessor_specification_rfc_346113m.html">Reply</a></td>
      </tr></table>]]></description>
    <pubDate>Wed, 12 Jul 2006 07:39:20 PDT</pubDate>
  </item>
</channel>
</rss>