public inbox for linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Michael Monnerie <michael.monnerie@is.it-management.at>
To: xfs@oss.sgi.com
Subject: Re: allocsize mount option, was: [PATCH 1/2] xfs: dynamic speculative EOF preallocation
Date: Fri, 15 Oct 2010 08:51:24 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <201010150851.25327@zmi.at> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20101014213325.GF4681@dastard>


[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: Text/Plain, Size: 1183 bytes --]

On Donnerstag, 14. Oktober 2010 Dave Chinner wrote:
> > I guess the reason one might want the "allocsize" mount
> > option now becomes the opposite of why one might have
> > wanted it before.  I.e., it would be used to reduce
> > the size of the preallocated range beyond EOF, which I
> > could envision might be reasonable in some circumstances.
> 
> It now becomes the minimum preallocation size, rather than both the
> minimum and the maximum....

Until now, I often set allocsize to be <nr of data disks>*<stripe size>, 
i.e. in a 8 disk RAID-6 with 64KB stripe size = 6*64 = 384KB
I guess this should provide the best performance.

Is my assumption true?
Will it change with the new code?
Does XFS automatically use allocsize=<1 full stripe> so I can skip my 
manual allocsize options?

-- 
mit freundlichen Grüssen,
Michael Monnerie, Ing. BSc

it-management Internet Services
http://proteger.at [gesprochen: Prot-e-schee]
Tel: 0660 / 415 65 31

****** Radiointerview zum Thema Spam ******
http://www.it-podcast.at/archiv.html#podcast-100716

// Wir haben im Moment zwei Häuser zu verkaufen:
// http://zmi.at/langegg/
// http://zmi.at/haus2009/

[-- Attachment #1.2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 121 bytes --]

_______________________________________________
xfs mailing list
xfs@oss.sgi.com
http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs

  reply	other threads:[~2010-10-15  6:50 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 17+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2010-10-04 10:13 [RFC, PATCH 0/2] xfs: dynamic speculative preallocation for delalloc Dave Chinner
2010-10-04 10:13 ` [PATCH 1/2] xfs: dynamic speculative EOF preallocation Dave Chinner
2010-10-14 17:22   ` Alex Elder
2010-10-14 21:33     ` Dave Chinner
2010-10-15  6:51       ` Michael Monnerie [this message]
2010-10-15 11:59         ` allocsize mount option, was: " Dave Chinner
2010-10-04 10:13 ` [PATCH 2/2] xfs: don't truncate prealloc from frequently accessed inodes Dave Chinner
2010-10-14 17:22   ` Alex Elder
2010-10-14 21:28     ` Dave Chinner
2010-10-14 17:22 ` [RFC, PATCH 0/2] xfs: dynamic speculative preallocation for delalloc Alex Elder
2010-10-14 21:16   ` Dave Chinner
2010-10-14 21:50     ` Ivan.Novick
2010-10-15  7:14       ` Michael Monnerie
2010-10-15 11:45         ` Dave Chinner
2010-10-17 14:31           ` Michael Monnerie
2010-10-17 23:49             ` Dave Chinner
2010-10-18  6:39               ` Michael Monnerie

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=201010150851.25327@zmi.at \
    --to=michael.monnerie@is.it-management.at \
    --cc=xfs@oss.sgi.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox