From: Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com>
To: Dewangga <dewanggaba@xtremenitro.org>
Cc: xfs@oss.sgi.com
Subject: Re: Valid Benchmark Value & Methods
Date: Fri, 8 May 2015 08:55:21 +1000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20150507225521.GB16689@dastard> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <554B5782.4040303@xtremenitro.org>
On Thu, May 07, 2015 at 07:16:02PM +0700, Dewangga wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Hello Martin,
> Thanks for your reply, yes I've read that link, but another question,
> is noatime,nodiratime,etc still valid for performance tuning guidance?
You may have read it, but I don't think it sunk in....
> Even the default mount options only "rw,inode64,seclabel,attr2".
Where's relatime(*)? That's been a default for a lot longer than
inode64...
$ grep "root " /proc/mounts
/dev/root / xfs rw,relatime,attr2,inode64,noquota 0 0
$
> Is it still increase the performance if the additional mount options
> added?
Depends on your workload, which is more critical to understand than
anything else. Why? because it's your workload that is going to
determine if twiddling a knob is going to have any effect on
performance. Once you understand the workload and what the
bottlenecks are, then you can look at what knobs the filesystem
provides to alleviate those bottlenecks.
IOWs, asking the question "how do I tune my filesystem for best
performance" is, fundamentally, the wrong way to go about obtaining
best filesystem performance. The questions that need to be answered
are "what bottlenecks does my application have?" followed by "what
does the filesystem provide to alleviate those bottlenecks".
i.e. understand the problem you need to solve *before* you try to
solve it, otherwise you "solve" the wrong problem...
Cheers,
Dave.
(*) An example of exactly what I'm talking abou there. The default
option of relatime gets >95% of the benefit of noatime onmost
workloads compared to the old strictatime behaviour, but unlike
noatime it still retains atime updates. IOWs there's a pretty good
chance that noatime has little measurable impact on your
application's performance, but understanding and benchmarking
anything other than your application won't tell you this.
--
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:[~2015-05-07 22:55 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-05-07 11:24 Valid Benchmark Value & Methods Dewangga
2015-05-07 11:48 ` Martin Steigerwald
2015-05-07 11:49 ` Martin Steigerwald
2015-05-07 12:16 ` Dewangga
2015-05-07 13:54 ` Martin Steigerwald
2015-05-07 22:55 ` Dave Chinner [this message]
2015-05-08 5:53 ` Dewangga Bachrul Alam
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=20150507225521.GB16689@dastard \
--to=david@fromorbit.com \
--cc=dewanggaba@xtremenitro.org \
--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