From: Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com>
To: Stan Hoeppner <stan@hardwarefreak.com>
Cc: xfs@oss.sgi.com
Subject: Re: XFS: performance
Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2010 15:29:13 +1100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20101130042913.GB3556@dastard> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4CF33D0F.6080404@hardwarefreak.com>
On Sun, Nov 28, 2010 at 11:41:35PM -0600, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
> Yclept Nemo put forth on 11/28/2010 9:57 PM:
> > You mention an eight-core machine (8c?). Since I operate a dual-core
> > system, would it make sense to increase my AG count slightly, to five
> > or six?
>
> Dave didn't mention the disk configuration of his "workstation". I'm
> guessing he's got a local RAID setup with 8-16 drives.
2 SSDs in RAID0.
> AG count has a
> direct relationship to the storage hardware, not the number of CPUs
> (cores) in the system.
Actually, I used 16 AGs because it's twice the number of CPU cores
and I want to make sure that CPU parallel workloads (e.g. make -j 8)
don't serialise on AG locks during allocation. IOWs, I laid it out
that way precisely because of the number of CPUs in the system...
And to point out the not-so-obvious, this is the _default layout_
that mkfs.xfs in the debian squeeze installer came up with. IOWs,
mkfs.xfs did exactly what I wanted without me having to tweak
_anything_.
> If you have a 24 core system (2x Magny Cours)
> and a single disk, creating an FS with 24 AGs will give you nothing, and
> may actually impede performance due to all the extra head seeking across
> those 24 AGs.
In that case, you are right. Single spindle SRDs go backwards in
performance pretty quickly once you go over 4 AGs...
Cheers,
Dave.
--
Dave Chinner
david@fromorbit.com
_______________________________________________
xfs mailing list
xfs@oss.sgi.com
http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2010-11-30 4:27 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2010-11-28 22:51 XFS: performance Yclept Nemo
2010-11-29 0:11 ` Dave Chinner
2010-11-29 1:21 ` Yclept Nemo
2010-11-29 1:59 ` Dave Chinner
[not found] ` <AANLkTikw086Z_66cz_U-EdFQx14TXP6XmiG-KyLN4BLo@mail.gmail.com>
2010-11-29 3:57 ` Yclept Nemo
2010-11-29 5:41 ` Stan Hoeppner
2010-11-30 4:29 ` Dave Chinner [this message]
2010-11-30 4:50 ` Stan Hoeppner
2010-11-30 7:51 ` Dave Chinner
2010-12-01 0:47 ` Stan Hoeppner
2010-11-29 8:38 ` Michael Monnerie
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20101130042913.GB3556@dastard \
--to=david@fromorbit.com \
--cc=stan@hardwarefreak.com \
--cc=xfs@oss.sgi.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.