From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mx3.redhat.com (mx3.redhat.com [172.16.48.32]) by int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id l8PFDmOv030525 for ; Tue, 25 Sep 2007 11:13:48 -0400 Received: from shuttlerun.csg.stercomm.com (scidalsmtp02.csg.stercomm.com [204.214.3.25]) by mx3.redhat.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id l8PFDlq9000483 for ; Tue, 25 Sep 2007 11:13:48 -0400 Message-ID: <46F925A3.4060306@stercomm.com> Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2007 10:13:39 -0500 From: Chris Cox MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [linux-lvm] LVM Overhead References: <1C8CF1EA1A5B5940B81B0710B2A4C9381DF6018911@an-ex.ActiveNetwerx.int> <46F7D242.3030707@stercomm.com> <46F7D49A.2090206@wpkg.org> <46F7E720.4060304@stercomm.com> <46F7E839.8040805@stercomm.com> <46F7F955.7070608@wpkg.org> In-Reply-To: <46F7F955.7070608@wpkg.org> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Reply-To: LVM general discussion and development List-Id: LVM general discussion and development List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: LVM general discussion and development Tomasz Chmielewski wrote: > Chris Cox schrieb: ... >> I check my local drives, they all use the default 1024.... >> Is setting the read ahead that big of a deal with just LVM? >> I would think if it's an issue, it's an issue everywhere. > > For me, the default was 256. > > I use that big readahead after a bit of benchmarking; perhaps it's very > specific to my setup. > > Oh... I didn't say it wouldn't benefit, I just know in my case it's not a HUGE win... but it is significant, significant enough for me to want to experiment with the values and doing some benchmarking. 256? Whoa... that seems really low. -- Chris Cox Sr. Unix Sys Admin