From: Stan Hoeppner <stan@hardwarefreak.com>
To: "Arkadiusz Miśkiewicz" <arekm@maven.pl>
Cc: linux-raid@vger.kernel.org, "xfs@oss.sgi.com" <xfs@oss.sgi.com>
Subject: Re: md-RAID5/6 stripe_cache_size default value vs performance vs memory footprint
Date: Sat, 21 Dec 2013 19:41:37 -0600 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <52B64351.4040806@hardwarefreak.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <52B57912.5080000@hardwarefreak.com>
On 12/21/2013 5:18 AM, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
...
> For example, I assisted a user with 5x Intel SSDs back in January and
> his system required 4096, or 80MB of RAM for stripe cache, to reach
> maximum write throughput of the devices. This yielded 600MB/s or 60%
> greater throughput than 2048, or 40MB RAM for cache. In his case 60MB
> more RAM than the default was well worth the increase as the machine was
> an iSCSI target server with 8GB RAM.
Correction here. I said above that 80MB was 60MB greater than the
default for his 5 drives. This should have said 75MB greater than the
default which is 1MB per member device, or 5MB for 5 drives.
--
Stan
_______________________________________________
xfs mailing list
xfs@oss.sgi.com
http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2013-12-22 1:41 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 25+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2013-12-18 2:05 XFS blocked task in xlog_cil_force_lsn Kevin Richter
2013-12-18 3:38 ` Stan Hoeppner
2013-12-18 10:27 ` Kevin Richter
2013-12-19 14:11 ` Stan Hoeppner
2013-12-20 10:26 ` Kevin Richter
2013-12-20 12:36 ` Stan Hoeppner
2013-12-21 5:30 ` Dave Chinner
2013-12-22 9:18 ` Stan Hoeppner
2013-12-22 20:14 ` Dave Chinner
2013-12-22 21:01 ` Michael L. Semon
2013-12-22 2:35 ` Kevin Richter
2013-12-22 8:12 ` Stan Hoeppner
2013-12-22 14:10 ` Kevin Richter
2013-12-22 17:29 ` Stan Hoeppner
2013-12-20 22:43 ` Arkadiusz Miśkiewicz
2013-12-21 11:18 ` md-RAID5/6 stripe_cache_size default value vs performance vs memory footprint Stan Hoeppner
2013-12-21 11:18 ` Stan Hoeppner
2013-12-21 12:20 ` Piergiorgio Sartor
2013-12-21 12:20 ` Piergiorgio Sartor
2013-12-22 1:41 ` Stan Hoeppner [this message]
2013-12-26 8:55 ` Christoph Hellwig
2013-12-26 9:24 ` Stan Hoeppner
2013-12-26 22:14 ` NeilBrown
2013-12-18 8:33 ` XFS blocked task in xlog_cil_force_lsn Stefan Ring
2013-12-18 22:21 ` 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=52B64351.4040806@hardwarefreak.com \
--to=stan@hardwarefreak.com \
--cc=arekm@maven.pl \
--cc=linux-raid@vger.kernel.org \
--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.