From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list xfs); Thu, 24 May 2007 23:53:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: from one.firstfloor.org (one.firstfloor.org [213.235.205.2]) by oss.sgi.com (8.12.10/8.12.10/SuSE Linux 0.7) with ESMTP id l4P6r7Wt012051 for ; Thu, 24 May 2007 23:53:10 -0700 Date: Fri, 25 May 2007 08:53:03 +0200 From: Andi Kleen Subject: Re: PARTIAL TAKE 964999 - lazy superblock counters for XFS Message-ID: <20070525065303.GA8094@one.firstfloor.org> References: <20070522075932.E665058CA531@chook.melbourne.sgi.com> <20070524232405.GE85884050@sgi.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20070524232405.GE85884050@sgi.com> Sender: xfs-bounce@oss.sgi.com Errors-to: xfs-bounce@oss.sgi.com List-Id: xfs To: David Chinner Cc: Andi Kleen , xfs@oss.sgi.com, sgi.bugs.xfs@engr.sgi.com > If you are running 100 concurrent transactions to your small > filesystem, then yest, it will also help. But that sort of load > is usually seen on file servers or large compute boxes doing lots > of file manipuations.... But won't you do less sb writes on any workload since the data is stored elsewhere? -Andi