[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20110706070756.GA25800@infradead.org>
Date: Wed, 6 Jul 2011 03:07:56 -0400
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
To: Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>
Cc: T?r?k Edwin <edwintorok@...il.com>, xfs-masters@....sgi.com,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
xfs@....sgi.com
Subject: Re: XFS internal error (memory corruption)
On Wed, Jul 06, 2011 at 02:04:03PM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote:
> > Although is there supposed to be a performance benefit from having
> > a separate log disk with XFS?
>
> There used to be. Now everyone just uses delayed logging, which is
> far faster and more scalable that even using an external log.
Even with delayed logging external logs are a huge benefit if you
hit the log hard, e.g. for fsync intensive workloads. E.g. when
using fs_mark in fsync mode it gives speedups over 100% for the
setups I've tested. You'll see similar speedups for NFS server
loads that are log force heavy as well.
>
> > IIRC it has a disadvantage that you can't use barriers properly.
>
> That mostly works now (recent kernels), but you take a hit in
> journal IO waiting synchronously for the data device caches to be
> flushed before writing to the log device.
For metadata-heavy workloads where an external log benefits you most
you generally just want to disable the volatile write cache anyway.
--
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