From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list xfs); Sun, 24 Feb 2008 17:11:30 -0800 (PST) Received: from larry.melbourne.sgi.com (larry.melbourne.sgi.com [134.14.52.130]) by oss.sgi.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11/SuSE Linux 0.7) with SMTP id m1P1BJK8012037 for ; Sun, 24 Feb 2008 17:11:22 -0800 Message-ID: <47C21585.8030504@sgi.com> Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2008 12:10:29 +1100 From: Mark Goodwin Reply-To: markgw@sgi.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [RFC, patch 1/2] Allow up to 1GB logs in mkfs.xfs References: <20080221230833.GG155407@sgi.com> <20080222050301.GP155407@sgi.com> <47BE6122.5040007@sgi.com> <20080222065338.GQ155407@sgi.com> In-Reply-To: <20080222065338.GQ155407@sgi.com> 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: David Chinner Cc: Lachlan McIlroy , Niv Sardi , xfs-dev , xfs-oss David Chinner wrote: > On Fri, Feb 22, 2008 at 04:44:02PM +1100, Lachlan McIlroy wrote: >> David Chinner wrote: >>> On Fri, Feb 22, 2008 at 01:44:38PM +1100, Niv Sardi wrote: >>>> David Chinner writes: >>>>> Increase the maximum log size supported by mkfs. >>> .... >>>>> Hence logs larger than 2^30 will not work without kernel >>>>> modifications. > Therefore this change is limited to increasing the >>>>> log size to what we can currently support in kernel space with >>>>> needing kernel modifications. Does anyone know of any work in mainline to address this? >>>> I'm glad you got time to get around this, I didn't include it in the >>>> first batch as I was told it 'broke things'. >>> Right. There's all sorts of nasties lurking if we go over 1GB in >>> size, but AFAICT up to 1GB is OK. There's still lots of validation >>> needing to be done - that's why this is an "RFC" and not something >>> ready for checkin yet. That's where more eye's and testers are >>> handy... >> Dave, have you run any tests to see if we get any speed-ups with >> this change? > > Not yet - I've been running it through QA with different log sizes > first to see if there's anything obviously broken with the kernel > w.r.t. larger log sizes (nothing wrong so far). What sort of improvements are we expecting? Log bound benchmarks will tail-push later than they do now, wont they? Which particular benchmarks are you thinking of running? Thanks -- Mark Goodwin markgw@sgi.com Engineering Manager for XFS and PCP Phone: +61-3-99631937 SGI Australian Software Group Cell: +61-4-18969583 -------------------------------------------------------------