From: Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com>
To: Stan Hoeppner <stan@hardwarefreak.com>
Cc: xfs@oss.sgi.com
Subject: Re: XFS: performance
Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2010 18:51:09 +1100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20101130075109.GN13830@dastard> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4CF48299.2030204@hardwarefreak.com>
On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 10:50:33PM -0600, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
> Dave Chinner put forth on 11/29/2010 10:29 PM:
> > On Sun, Nov 28, 2010 at 11:41:35PM -0600, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
> >> Yclept Nemo put forth on 11/28/2010 9:57 PM:
> >>> You mention an eight-core machine (8c?). Since I operate a dual-core
> >>> system, would it make sense to increase my AG count slightly, to five
> >>> or six?
> >>
> >> Dave didn't mention the disk configuration of his "workstation". I'm
> >> guessing he's got a local RAID setup with 8-16 drives.
> >
> > 2 SSDs in RAID0.
>
> From an IOPs and throughput perspective, very similar to my guess.
> Curious, are those Intel, OCZ, or other SSDs? Which model,
> specifically? Benchmark data? I ask as all the results I find on the
> web for SSDs are from Windows 7 machines. :( I like to see some Linux
> results.
Cheap as it gets 120GB Sandforce 1200 drives. In RAID0, I'm getting about
450MB/s sequential write, a little more for read. I'm seeing up to
12-14k random 4k writes per drive through XFS. Other than that I
didn't bother with any more benchmarks because it was clearly Fast
Enough.
> > And to point out the not-so-obvious, this is the _default layout_
> > that mkfs.xfs in the debian squeeze installer came up with. IOWs,
> > mkfs.xfs did exactly what I wanted without me having to tweak
> > _anything_.
>
> Forgive me for I've not looked at the code. How exactly does mkfs.xfs
> determine the AG count? If you'd had a single 7.2k SATA drive instead
> of 2 RAID0 SSDs, would it have still given you 16 AGs? If so, I'd say
> that's a bug.
No, it detected the RAID configuration. 16 AGs is the default for a
RAID device, 4 AGs is used if RAID is not detected.
Cheers,
Dave.
--
Dave Chinner
david@fromorbit.com
_______________________________________________
xfs mailing list
xfs@oss.sgi.com
http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2010-11-30 7:49 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2010-11-28 22:51 XFS: performance Yclept Nemo
2010-11-29 0:11 ` Dave Chinner
2010-11-29 1:21 ` Yclept Nemo
2010-11-29 1:59 ` Dave Chinner
[not found] ` <AANLkTikw086Z_66cz_U-EdFQx14TXP6XmiG-KyLN4BLo@mail.gmail.com>
2010-11-29 3:57 ` Yclept Nemo
2010-11-29 5:41 ` Stan Hoeppner
2010-11-30 4:29 ` Dave Chinner
2010-11-30 4:50 ` Stan Hoeppner
2010-11-30 7:51 ` Dave Chinner [this message]
2010-12-01 0:47 ` Stan Hoeppner
2010-11-29 8:38 ` 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=20101130075109.GN13830@dastard \
--to=david@fromorbit.com \
--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