[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4D419765.4070805@teksavvy.com>
Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2011 11:03:49 -0500
From: Mark Lord <kernel@...savvy.com>
To: Justin Piszcz <jpiszcz@...idpixels.com>
CC: Stan Hoeppner <stan@...dwarefreak.com>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>, xfs@....sgi.com,
Linux Kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Alex Elder <aelder@....com>
Subject: Re: xfs: very slow after mount, very slow at umount
On 11-01-27 10:40 AM, Justin Piszcz wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, 27 Jan 2011, Mark Lord wrote:
..
>> Can you recommend a good set of mkfs.xfs parameters to suit the characteristics
>> of this system? Eg. Only a few thousand active inodes, and nearly all files are
>> in the 600MB -> 20GB size range. The usage pattern it must handle is up to
>> six concurrent streaming writes at the same time as up to three streaming reads,
>> with no significant delays permitted on the reads.
>>
>> That's the kind of workload that I find XFS handles nicely,
>> and EXT4 has given me trouble with in the past.
..
> I did a load of benchmarks a long time ago testing every mkfs.xfs option there
> was, and I found that most of the time (if not all), the defaults were the best.
..
I am concerned with fragmentation on the very special workload in this case.
I'd really like the 20GB files, written over a 1-2 hour period, to consist
of a very few very large extents, as much as possible.
Rather than hundreds or thousands of "tiny" MB sized extents.
I wonder what the best mkfs.xfs parameters might be to encourage that?
Cheers
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists