From: Brian Candler <B.Candler@pobox.com>
To: Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com>
Cc: David Fuller <dfuller@epoch.com>, xfs@oss.sgi.com
Subject: Re: Fragmentation Issue We Are Having
Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2012 09:58:28 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20120417085828.GA13168@nsrc.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20120417002610.GC6734@dastard>
On Tue, Apr 17, 2012 at 10:26:10AM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote:
> > > You can't just blindly assert that something is needed purely on
> > > the size of the filesystem.
> >
> > Thanks, but then perhaps the XFS FAQ needs updating. It warns that you might
> > have compatibility problems with old clients (NFS) and inode64, but it
> > doesn't say "for some workloads inode32 may perform better than inode64 on
> > large filesystems".
>
> The FAQ doesn't say anything about whether inode32 performs better
> than inode64 or vice versa.
With respect it does, although in only three words:
"Also, performance sucks".
Maybe it would be useful to expand this. How about:
"Also, performance sucks for many common workloads and benchmarks, such as
sequentially extracting or reading a large hierarchy of files. This is
because in filesystems >1TB without inode64, files created within the same
parent directory are not created in the same allocation group with adjacent
extents."
If as you say inode32 was just a hack for broken NFS clients, then it seems
to me that the *intended* default performance characteristics are those of
inode64? That is, the designers considered this to be the most appropriate
performance compromise for typical users?
Regards,
Brian.
_______________________________________________
xfs mailing list
xfs@oss.sgi.com
http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2012-04-17 8:58 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 15+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2012-04-12 1:04 Fragmentation Issue We Are Having David Fuller
2012-04-12 2:16 ` Dave Chinner
2012-04-12 2:55 ` David Fuller
2012-04-12 4:24 ` Eric Sandeen
2012-04-12 7:57 ` Brian Candler
2012-04-13 0:09 ` David Fuller
2012-04-13 7:19 ` Brian Candler
2012-04-13 7:56 ` Dave Chinner
2012-04-13 8:17 ` Brian Candler
2012-04-17 0:26 ` Dave Chinner
2012-04-17 8:58 ` Brian Candler [this message]
2012-04-18 1:36 ` Dave Chinner
2012-04-18 9:00 ` Brian Candler
2012-04-19 23:12 ` Dave Chinner
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2012-04-19 19:54 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=20120417085828.GA13168@nsrc.org \
--to=b.candler@pobox.com \
--cc=david@fromorbit.com \
--cc=dfuller@epoch.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