From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda2.sgi.com [192.48.176.25]) by oss.sgi.com (8.14.3/8.14.3/SuSE Linux 0.8) with ESMTP id o29LeLcj199699 for ; Tue, 9 Mar 2010 15:40:22 -0600 Received: from enyo.dsw2k3.info (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cuda.sgi.com (Spam Firewall) with ESMTP id 824A422A0BA for ; Tue, 9 Mar 2010 13:41:52 -0800 (PST) Received: from enyo.dsw2k3.info (enyo.dsw2k3.info [195.71.86.239]) by cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id Sk660YWW1soZECUH for ; Tue, 09 Mar 2010 13:41:52 -0800 (PST) Date: Tue, 9 Mar 2010 22:41:31 +0100 From: Matthias Schniedermeyer Subject: Re: What are the correct mkfs.xfs parameters for a lying WD-EARS HDD? Message-ID: <20100309214131.GA30233@citd.de> References: <20100308221044.GA17830@citd.de> <4B957E03.9090000@sandeen.net> <20100308234755.GA20269@citd.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20100308234755.GA20269@citd.de> List-Id: XFS Filesystem from SGI List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com Errors-To: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com To: Eric Sandeen Cc: xfs@oss.sgi.com On 09.03.2010 00:47, Matthias Schniedermeyer wrote: > On 08.03.2010 16:45, Eric Sandeen wrote: > > Matthias Schniedermeyer wrote: > > > Hi > > > > > > > > > More than a month ago i bought 4 Western Digital WD15EARS (1.5 TB) which > > > are (AFAIK) the first general/commercial available 4k sector SATA-HDDs. > > > > > > Unfortunatly the HDDs lie about the 4k physical sector size and the most > > > prominent drawback is a worse than abysmal delete performance. > > > ("Normal" Read & Write-performance is OK) > > > > > > So if i wanted to (re-)mkfs the filesystems what would the correct > > > parameters be? > > > > once that is done, tell mkfs.xfs "-s size=4096" to set the 4k sector size > > So that should be enough? > Time for backup/mkfs/restore then. backup/mkfs/restore is finished. I'm currently testing delete-performance. And it improved to abysmal performance. (As expected) Read-latency, while deleting, has also improved drastically. Before the FS was near unusable while deleting. But that is also to be expected from such a HDD when it is doing RMW like there is no tomorrow. ;-) Bis denn -- Real Programmers consider "what you see is what you get" to be just as bad a concept in Text Editors as it is in women. No, the Real Programmer wants a "you asked for it, you got it" text editor -- complicated, cryptic, powerful, unforgiving, dangerous. _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs