All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Mark Lord <kernel@teksavvy.com>
To: Justin Piszcz <jpiszcz@lucidpixels.com>
Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>,
	Alex Elder <aelder@sgi.com>,
	Linux Kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	Stan Hoeppner <stan@hardwarefreak.com>,
	xfs@oss.sgi.com
Subject: Re: xfs: very slow after mount, very slow at umount
Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2011 11:03:49 -0500	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <4D419765.4070805@teksavvy.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.00.1101271040000.31246@p34.internal.lan>

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

_______________________________________________
xfs mailing list
xfs@oss.sgi.com
http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Mark Lord <kernel@teksavvy.com>
To: Justin Piszcz <jpiszcz@lucidpixels.com>
Cc: Stan Hoeppner <stan@hardwarefreak.com>,
	Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>,
	xfs@oss.sgi.com, Linux Kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	Alex Elder <aelder@sgi.com>
Subject: Re: xfs: very slow after mount, very slow at umount
Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2011 11:03:49 -0500	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <4D419765.4070805@teksavvy.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.00.1101271040000.31246@p34.internal.lan>

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

  reply	other threads:[~2011-01-27 16:01 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 69+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2011-01-27  1:22 xfs: very slow after mount, very slow at umount Mark Lord
2011-01-27  1:43 ` Mark Lord
2011-01-27  3:43   ` Dave Chinner
2011-01-27  3:43     ` Dave Chinner
2011-01-27  3:53     ` Mark Lord
2011-01-27  3:53       ` Mark Lord
2011-01-27  4:54       ` Mark Lord
2011-01-27  4:54         ` Mark Lord
2011-01-27 23:34       ` Dave Chinner
2011-01-27 23:34         ` Dave Chinner
2011-01-27  3:30 ` Dave Chinner
2011-01-27  3:30   ` Dave Chinner
2011-01-27  3:49   ` Mark Lord
2011-01-27  3:49     ` Mark Lord
2011-01-27  5:17     ` Stan Hoeppner
2011-01-27 15:12     ` Mark Lord
2011-01-27 15:12       ` Mark Lord
2011-01-27 15:40       ` Justin Piszcz
2011-01-27 15:40         ` Justin Piszcz
2011-01-27 16:03         ` Mark Lord [this message]
2011-01-27 16:03           ` Mark Lord
2011-01-27 19:40           ` Stan Hoeppner
2011-01-27 19:40             ` Stan Hoeppner
2011-01-27 20:11             ` david
2011-01-27 20:11               ` david
2011-01-27 23:53               ` Stan Hoeppner
2011-01-27 23:53                 ` Stan Hoeppner
2011-01-28  2:09                 ` david
2011-01-28  2:09                   ` david
2011-01-28 13:56                   ` Dave Chinner
2011-01-28 13:56                     ` Dave Chinner
2011-01-28 19:26                     ` david
2011-01-28 19:26                       ` david
2011-01-29  5:40                       ` Dave Chinner
2011-01-29  5:40                         ` Dave Chinner
2011-01-29  6:08                         ` david
2011-01-29  6:08                           ` david
2011-01-29  7:35                           ` Dave Chinner
2011-01-29  7:35                             ` Dave Chinner
2011-01-31 19:17                             ` Christoph Hellwig
2011-01-31 19:17                               ` Christoph Hellwig
2011-01-27 21:56             ` Mark Lord
2011-01-27 21:56               ` Mark Lord
2011-01-28  0:17               ` Dave Chinner
2011-01-28  0:17                 ` Dave Chinner
2011-01-28  1:22                 ` Mark Lord
2011-01-28  1:22                   ` Mark Lord
2011-01-28  1:36                   ` Mark Lord
2011-01-28  1:36                     ` Mark Lord
2011-01-28  4:14                   ` David Rees
2011-01-28  4:14                     ` David Rees
2011-01-28 14:22                     ` Mark Lord
2011-01-28 14:22                       ` Mark Lord
2011-01-28  7:31                   ` Dave Chinner
2011-01-28  7:31                     ` Dave Chinner
2011-01-28 14:33                     ` Mark Lord
2011-01-28 14:33                       ` Mark Lord
2011-01-28 23:58                       ` Dave Chinner
2011-01-28 23:58                         ` Dave Chinner
2011-01-28 19:18             ` Martin Steigerwald
2011-01-28 19:18               ` Martin Steigerwald
2011-01-27 20:24           ` John Stoffel
2011-01-27 20:24             ` John Stoffel
2011-01-27 23:41       ` Dave Chinner
2011-01-27 23:41         ` Dave Chinner
2011-01-28  0:59         ` Mark Lord
2011-01-28  0:59           ` Mark Lord
2011-01-27 23:39     ` Dave Chinner
2011-01-27 23:39       ` Dave Chinner

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=4D419765.4070805@teksavvy.com \
    --to=kernel@teksavvy.com \
    --cc=aelder@sgi.com \
    --cc=hch@infradead.org \
    --cc=jpiszcz@lucidpixels.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --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.