Re: ZFS, XFS, and EXT4 compared

[Nathan Scott <nscott@aconex.com>]

[culled zfs-discuss from CC, since its subscriber-only]

On Thu, 2007-08-30 at 14:20 +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> 
> On Thu, Aug 30, 2007 at 05:07:46PM +1000, Nathan Scott wrote:
> > To improve metadata performance, you have many options with XFS
> (which
> > ones are useful depends on the type of metadata workload) - you can
> try
> > a v2 format log, and mount with "-o logbsize=256k", try increasing
> the
> > directory block size (e.g. mkfs.xfs -nsize=16k, etc), and also the
> log
> > size (mkfs.xfs -lsize=XXXXXXb).
> 
> Okay, these suggestions are one too often now.  v2 log and large
> logs/log
> buffers are the almost universal suggestions, and we really need to
> make
> these defaults.

Possibly.  Far more importantly for XFS, there really needs to be some
way for RAID drivers to say "even though I support write barriers, its
not a good idea for filesystems to enable write barriers by default on
me".  Enabling write barriers everywhere, by default, seems to have a
far worse impact than any mkfs/mount option tweaking.

>   XFS is already the laughing stock of the Linux community
> due to it's absurdely bad default settings.

Oh, _thats_ what everyone's laughing at?

cheers.

--
Nathan