Re: Anyone using XFS in production on > 20TiB volumes?

Justin Piszcz
2010-12-23T22:03:00Z

[-- Attachment #1: Type: TEXT/PLAIN, Size: 2185 bytes --]

Hi,

I had not tested with 64KB or 16KB stripes:

I used optimal (default I believe) in newer 2.2+ parted:

-a alignment-type, --align alignment-type
Set alignment for newly created partitions, valid alignment
types are:

none Use the minimum alignment allowed by the disk type.

cylinder
Align partitions to cylinders.

minimal
Use minimum alignment as given by the disk topology
information. This and the opt value will use layout
information provided by the disk to align the logical
partition table addresses to actual physical blocks on
the disks. The min value is the minimum aligment needed
to align the partition properly to physical blocks, which
avoids performance degradation.

optimal
Use optimum alignment as given by the disk topology
information. This aligns to a multiple of the physical
block size in a way that guarantees optimal performance.

I'm happy with the performance now.. I get 16GB ram tomorrow so hopefully
that'll be enough if I need to xfs_repair.

Justin.

On Thu, 23 Dec 2010, Emmanuel Florac wrote:

> Le Thu, 23 Dec 2010 14:07:13 -0500 (EST) vous écriviez:
>
>> Main wonder I have is why when the partition is aligned to 1MiB,
>> which is the default in parted 2.2+ I believe, is it slower than with
>> no partitions?
>
> 1MiB possibly can't round well on the stripe boundaries. I suppose you
> could get better results with 64KB or 16KB stripes. Did you try with an
> LVM in between?
>
> --
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Emmanuel Florac | Direction technique
> | Intellique
> | <eflorac@intellique.com>
> | +33 1 78 94 84 02
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>

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