From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list xfs); Mon, 16 Jul 2007 06:05:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.q-leap.de (ns1.q-leap.de [153.94.51.193]) by oss.sgi.com (8.12.10/8.12.10/SuSE Linux 0.7) with ESMTP id l6GD5Dbm008249 for ; Mon, 16 Jul 2007 06:05:15 -0700 From: Bernd Schubert Subject: Re: 3ware 9650 tips Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2007 14:39:22 +0200 References: <20070716024115.GJ12413810@sgi.com> <20070716122225.GB31489@sgi.com> In-Reply-To: <20070716122225.GB31489@sgi.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200707161439.23159.bs@q-leap.de> Sender: xfs-bounce@oss.sgi.com Errors-to: xfs-bounce@oss.sgi.com List-Id: xfs To: David Chinner Cc: Justin Piszcz , Jon Collette , Joshua Baker-LePain , linux-ide-arrays@lists.math.uh.edu, linux-raid@vger.kernel.org, xfs@oss.sgi.com On Monday 16 July 2007 14:22:25 David Chinner wrote: > You can see from the ext3 graph that it comes to a screeching halt > every 5s (probably when pdflush runs) and at all other times the > seek rate is >10,000 seeks/s. That's pretty bad for a brand new, > empty filesystem and the only way it is sustained is the fact that > the disks have their write caches turned on. ext4 will probably show > better results, but I haven't got any of the tools installed to be > able to test it.... I recently did some filesystem throuput tests, you may find it here http://www.pci.uni-heidelberg.de/tc/usr/bernd/downloads/lustre/performance/ ldiskfs is ext3+extents+mballoc+some-smaller-patches, so is almost ext4 (delayed allocation is still missing, but the clusterfs/lustre people didn't port it and I'm afraid of hard to detect filesystem corruptions if I include it myself). Write performance is still slower than with xfs and I'm really considering to try to use xfs in lustre. Cheers, Bernd -- Bernd Schubert Q-Leap Networks GmbH