From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda3.sgi.com [192.48.176.15]) by oss.sgi.com (8.14.3/8.14.3/SuSE Linux 0.8) with ESMTP id q9B9DVCh079077 for ; Thu, 11 Oct 2012 04:13:31 -0500 Received: from mail-out4.booking.com (mail-out4.booking.com [91.195.237.21]) by cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id Y4ZvLDORu42ipi6X (version=TLSv1 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Thu, 11 Oct 2012 02:15:02 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2012 11:15:09 +0200 From: Marcin Deranek Subject: Re: Performance degradation over time Message-ID: <20121011111509.0a57372a@booking.com> In-Reply-To: <20121011103352.4ed8bbf5@booking.com> References: <20121010105142.148519ca@booking.com> <50757583.9000901@hardwarefreak.com> <507586B4.6010201@sandeen.net> <20121011103352.4ed8bbf5@booking.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 List-Id: XFS Filesystem from SGI List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com Errors-To: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com To: Marcin Deranek Cc: Eric Sandeen , stan@hardwarefreak.com, xfs@oss.sgi.com On Thu, 11 Oct 2012 10:33:52 +0200 Marcin Deranek wrote: > I guess next step would be to use inode64.. After mounting XFS with inode64 I see performance improvement (open() now takes ~3ms vs ~15ms previous) although it's still not something I would expect (~150us.) On Dave's suggestion I will give a shot CentOS 6.x and see if that makes any difference although this needs to be monitored over longer period of time to reliably tell if that make a difference. Regards, Marcin _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs