From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list xfs); Sat, 16 Feb 2008 01:28:19 -0800 (PST) Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda1.sgi.com [192.48.168.28]) by oss.sgi.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11/SuSE Linux 0.7) with ESMTP id m1G9SGSd014482 for ; Sat, 16 Feb 2008 01:28:17 -0800 Received: from smtp-out002.kontent.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cuda.sgi.com (Spam Firewall) with ESMTP id C70EFE37AA0 for ; Sat, 16 Feb 2008 01:28:41 -0800 (PST) Received: from smtp-out002.kontent.com (smtp-out002.kontent.com [81.88.40.216]) by cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id ehWs7COd9YH4HwE0 for ; Sat, 16 Feb 2008 01:28:41 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <47B6ACC5.3030605@theendofthetunnel.de> Date: Sat, 16 Feb 2008 10:28:37 +0100 From: Hannes Dorbath MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: tuning, many small files, small blocksize References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: xfs-bounce@oss.sgi.com Errors-to: xfs-bounce@oss.sgi.com List-Id: xfs To: Jeff Breidenbach Cc: xfs@oss.sgi.com Jeff Breidenbach wrote: > The underlying disks use linux software RAID-1 > manged by mdadm with 5X redundancy. E.g. 5 drives that > completely mirror each other. That's maybe a bit paranoid, but on the other hand it should give good parallelism. > a) Should I just go with the 512 byte blocksize or is that going to be > bad for some performance reason? Going to 1024 is no problem, > but I'd prefer not to waste 20% of the partition capacity by using 4096. I don't think there is performance problem with 512 byte block size, but it limits the internal log size to 32MB. You might want to use a larger external log. > b) Are there any other mkfs.xfs paramters that I should play with. mkfs.xfs -n size=16k -i attr=2 -l lazy-count=1,version=2,size=32m -b size=512 /dev/sda mount -onoatime,logbufs=8,logbsize=256k /dev/sda /mnt/xfs Requires kernel 2.6.23 and xfsprogs 2.9.5. As said, you might want to use an external log device. -- Best regards, Hannes Dorbath