From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Adam Talbot Subject: Re: Large single raid and XFS or two small ones and EXT3? Date: Sun, 25 Jun 2006 07:51:37 -0700 Message-ID: <449EA2F9.3050503@comcast.net> References: <449AEB7C.6040108@cjx.com> <449BE381.6070000@cjx.com> <68c491a60606230746m5c1f0301g8e00fdd4f0e0739b@mail.gmail.com> <449C0505.8000601@tmr.com> <17564.52087.651968.635043@cse.unsw.edu.au> <449CF0D0.9080006@comcast.net> <449D0715.8050609@dgreaves.com> <449DC23E.4000604@comcast.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <449DC23E.4000604@comcast.net> Sender: linux-raid-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Adam Talbot Cc: David Greaves , Neil Brown , Francois Barre , linux-raid@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-raid.ids ACK! At one point some one stated that they were having problems with XFS crashing under high NFS loads... Did it look something like this? -Adam Starting XFS recovery on filesystem: md0 (logdev: internal) Filesystem "md0": XFS internal error xlog_valid_rec_header(1) at line 3478 of file fs/xfs/xfs_log_recover.c. Caller 0xffffffff802114fc Call Trace: {xlog_valid_rec_header+231} {xlog_do_recovery_pass+172} {xlog_find_tail+2344} {kmem_alloc+97} {xlog_recover+192} {xfs_log_mount+1380} {xfs_mountfs+2712} {set_blocksize+138} {xfs_setsize_buftarg_flags+61} {xfs_mount+2724} {linvfs_fill_super+0} {linvfs_fill_super+184} {strlcpy+78} {sget+722} {set_bdev_super+0} {linvfs_fill_super+0} {linvfs_fill_super+0} {get_sb_bdev+268} {do_kern_mount+107} {do_mount+1603} {do_page_fault+1033} {find_get_pages+22} {invalidate_mapping_pages+202} {__alloc_pages+89} {__get_free_pages+52} {sys_mount+151} {system_call+126} XFS: log mount/recovery failed: error 990 XFS: log mount failed Adam Talbot wrote: > Trying to test for tuning with different chunk's. Just finished 16K > chunk and am about 20% done with the 32K test. Here are the numbers on > 16K chunk, will send 32, 96,128,192 and 256 as I get them. But keep in > mind each one of these tests take about 4~6 hours, so it is a slow > process... I have settled for XFS as the file system type, it seems to > be able to beat any thing else out there. > -Adam > > XFS > Config=NAS+NFS > RAID6 16K chunk > nas tmp # time tar cf - . | (cd /data ; tar xf - ) > real 252m40.143s > user 1m4.720s > sys 25m6.270s > /dev/md/0 1.1T 371G 748G 34% /data > 4.207 hours @ 90,167M/hour or 1502M/min or 25.05M/sec > > > > > David Greaves wrote: > >> Adam Talbot wrote: >> >> >>> OK, this topic I relay need to get in on. >>> I have spent the last few week bench marking my new 1.2TB, 6 disk, RAID6 >>> array. >>> >>> >> Very interesting. Thanks. >> >> Did you get around to any 'tuning'. >> Things like raid chunk size, external logs for xfs, blockdev readahead >> on the underlying devices and the raid device? >> >> David >> - >> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-raid" in >> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org >> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html >> >> >> > > - > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-raid" in > the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html > >