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
Cc: Stan Hoeppner <stan@hardwarefreak.com>
Subject: Re: Verify filesystem is aligned to stripes
Date: Fri, 26 Nov 2010 15:05:41 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <201011261505.50658@zmi.at> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20101126122218.GH12187@dastard>


[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: Text/Plain, Size: 1335 bytes --]

On Freitag, 26. November 2010 Dave Chinner wrote:
> FWIW, for workloads that do random, small IO, XFS works best when you
> turn off aligned allocation and just let it spray the IO at the
> disks. This works best if you are using RAID 0/1/10. All the numbers
> I've been posting are with aligned allocation turned off (i.e. no
> sunit/swidth set).

That's interesting to read.

Why would sunit/swidth be slower then? I'd thought that XFS then would 
know one stripe is 64k and I have 8 disks so it should try to pack 
8*64=512kb in one junk on disk, and that especially for small files it 
would write them like that.

The man page just says inodes, log are stripe aligned, and file tails 
>512k extended to full stripes on append. I thought that even the 
inode/log alignment alone would help a lot.

Now what is the advantage on skipping sunit/swidth altogether?
And what is the difference when it's on RAID10 to RAID6?

I'm always eager to understand performance issues ;-)

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

it-management Internet Services: Protéger
http://proteger.at [gesprochen: Prot-e-schee]
Tel: +43 660 / 415 6531

// ****** Radiointerview zum Thema Spam ******
// http://www.it-podcast.at/archiv.html#podcast-100716
// 
// Haus zu verkaufen: http://zmi.at/langegg/

[-- 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

  parent reply	other threads:[~2010-11-26 14:04 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2010-11-24 18:39 Verify filesystem is aligned to stripes Spelic
2010-11-25  5:46 ` Dave Chinner
2010-11-25  7:00   ` Stan Hoeppner
2010-11-25 10:15     ` Dave Chinner
2010-11-25 22:57       ` Stan Hoeppner
2010-11-26  8:16         ` Emmanuel Florac
2010-11-26 12:22           ` Dave Chinner
2010-11-26 13:15             ` Spelic
2010-11-26 14:05             ` Michael Monnerie [this message]
2010-11-26 14:36             ` Emmanuel Florac
  -- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2010-11-26  2:43 Richard Scobie

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=201011261505.50658@zmi.at \
    --to=michael.monnerie@is.it-management.at \
    --cc=stan@hardwarefreak.com \
    --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