From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Anthony W. Marino" Subject: Re: [linux-lvm] LVM System References: <1015285989.24367.7.camel@UberGeek> In-Reply-To: <1015285989.24367.7.camel@UberGeek> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Message-Id: Sender: linux-lvm-admin@sistina.com Errors-To: linux-lvm-admin@sistina.com Reply-To: linux-lvm@sistina.com List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon Mar 4 18:18:02 2002 List-Id: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: linux-lvm@sistina.com, Austin Gonyou On Monday 04 March 2002 06:53 pm, Austin Gonyou wrote: > On Mon, 2002-03-04 at 17:39, Steve Wray wrote: > > I'd recommend ext3 with data journalling for sensitive > > filesystems. Its slower than XFS but (seems to) scale better with > > striping and large files. XFS performance (seems to) fall off > > very rapidly as file size exceeds buffer size. > > > > XFS only journals metadata. So on event of a crash, > > the filesystem structure will (likely) be sound, but theres > > no guarantee that the data blocks will be uncorrupted!!! > > > > XFS is very nice tho, in that volumes and filesystems can > > be grown with no downtime at all (without even unmounting). > > > > You might want to do some benchmarking before committing > > to a build (thats recently saved my butt actually). > > I've only got a couple of things to say in the regard about XFS and > performance Falling off. > > XFS's performance doesn't fall off in the respects you've spoken about. > It's a misconception when using LVM, or evms, etc along with XFS. > > I ran into a similar issue, and was convinced it was XFS or LVM, etc. > This is in the relation of using XFS and LVM, vs. XFS with no LVM, and > then testing increasing filesizes with iozone. > > What I found was that dbench, and iozone both did not perform very well > with respect to software raid or striping, but that in fact the > filesystems themselves performed about 100% faster than without LVM > striping or LVM Concat. > > So much faster that my database guys noticed the enourmous increase in > speed on a test setup I created for them. One was using LVM, one was > not, with XFS. The one which was NOT using LVM had a hardware stripe > setup with write-back caching and adaptive read-ahead. The controller > has 128MB pc100Dimm. Using a 3 drive RAID 0 hardware, vs 3 drives > striped with LVM was an enourmous downgrade when benchmarking..but > actual use, db inserts, file create, etc, ran >100% faster than with > Hardware striping. > > I did the same test with Reiser and Ext2/3, none fared as well, but they > all did better with LVM and striping than without. > What kernel release and XFS version are you using? Anthony > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: linux-lvm-admin@sistina.com > > > > [mailto:linux-lvm-admin@sistina.com]On > > > > > Behalf Of Anthony W. Marino > > > Sent: Tuesday, 5 March 2002 10:39 a.m. > > > To: linux-lvm@sistina.com > > > Subject: [linux-lvm] LVM System > > > > > > > > > Any thoughts or articles that would be usefull in determining the > > > > quality > > > > > on the following combination would be greatly appreciated: > > > > > > LVM 1.x > > > 3Ware 7800 Raid Controller > > > Maxtor 40GB harddrives > > > XFS Journalling FS > > > SuSE 2.4.18+ Linux > > > > > > > > > Thank You, > > > Anthony > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > linux-lvm mailing list > > > linux-lvm@sistina.com > > > http://lists.sistina.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-lvm > > > read the LVM HOW-TO at http://www.sistina.com/lvm/Pages/howto.html > > > > _______________________________________________ > > linux-lvm mailing list > > linux-lvm@sistina.com > > http://lists.sistina.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-lvm > > read the LVM HOW-TO at http://www.sistina.com/lvm/Pages/howto.html