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 18:51:09 +1100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20101130075109.GN13830@dastard> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4CF48299.2030204@hardwarefreak.com>
On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 10:50:33PM -0600, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
> Dave Chinner put forth on 11/29/2010 10:29 PM:
> > 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.
>
> From an IOPs and throughput perspective, very similar to my guess.
> Curious, are those Intel, OCZ, or other SSDs? Which model,
> specifically? Benchmark data? I ask as all the results I find on the
> web for SSDs are from Windows 7 machines. :( I like to see some Linux
> results.
Cheap as it gets 120GB Sandforce 1200 drives. In RAID0, I'm getting about
450MB/s sequential write, a little more for read. I'm seeing up to
12-14k random 4k writes per drive through XFS. Other than that I
didn't bother with any more benchmarks because it was clearly Fast
Enough.
> > 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_.
>
> Forgive me for I've not looked at the code. How exactly does mkfs.xfs
> determine the AG count? If you'd had a single 7.2k SATA drive instead
> of 2 RAID0 SSDs, would it have still given you 16 AGs? If so, I'd say
> that's a bug.
No, it detected the RAID configuration. 16 AGs is the default for a
RAID device, 4 AGs is used if RAID is not detected.
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 7:49 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
2010-11-30 4:50 ` Stan Hoeppner
2010-11-30 7:51 ` Dave Chinner [this message]
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=20101130075109.GN13830@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.