[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1188513751.24970.109.camel@edge.yarra.acx>
Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2007 08:42:31 +1000
From: Nathan Scott <nscott@...nex.com>
To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
Cc: "Jeffrey W. Baker" <jwbaker@....org>, xfs@....sgi.com,
linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: ZFS, XFS, and EXT4 compared
[culled zfs-discuss from CC, since its subscriber-only]
On Thu, 2007-08-30 at 14:20 +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
>
> On Thu, Aug 30, 2007 at 05:07:46PM +1000, Nathan Scott wrote:
> > To improve metadata performance, you have many options with XFS
> (which
> > ones are useful depends on the type of metadata workload) - you can
> try
> > a v2 format log, and mount with "-o logbsize=256k", try increasing
> the
> > directory block size (e.g. mkfs.xfs -nsize=16k, etc), and also the
> log
> > size (mkfs.xfs -lsize=XXXXXXb).
>
> Okay, these suggestions are one too often now. v2 log and large
> logs/log
> buffers are the almost universal suggestions, and we really need to
> make
> these defaults.
Possibly. Far more importantly for XFS, there really needs to be some
way for RAID drivers to say "even though I support write barriers, its
not a good idea for filesystems to enable write barriers by default on
me". Enabling write barriers everywhere, by default, seems to have a
far worse impact than any mkfs/mount option tweaking.
> XFS is already the laughing stock of the Linux community
> due to it's absurdely bad default settings.
Oh, _thats_ what everyone's laughing at?
cheers.
--
Nathan
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists