Peter Kjellstrom wrote: > >This implies that you are running i386 and not x86_64. It has been my=20 >experience that xfs is less that solid on c4.i386 but fine on c4.x86_64. Th= >is=20 >is most likely due to the fact that i386 uses 4k kernel stack while x86_64= >=20 >uses 8k. Yes, that's correct. Going to x86_64 may be a possibility for future hardware incarnations of the host. Dave