From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list xfs); Wed, 25 Jun 2008 07:45:44 -0700 (PDT) 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 m5PEjW3W004223 for ; Wed, 25 Jun 2008 07:45:32 -0700 Received: from deliver.uni-koblenz.de (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cuda.sgi.com (Spam Firewall) with ESMTP id CE05ED49067 for ; Wed, 25 Jun 2008 07:46:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: from deliver.uni-koblenz.de (deliver.uni-koblenz.de [141.26.64.15]) by cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id GfhbkyFBQT1DBQTO for ; Wed, 25 Jun 2008 07:46:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by deliver.uni-koblenz.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 80985789A6A0 for ; Wed, 25 Jun 2008 16:46:31 +0200 (CEST) Received: from deliver.uni-koblenz.de ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (deliver.uni-koblenz.de [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 30132-04 for ; Wed, 25 Jun 2008 16:46:30 +0200 (CEST) Received: from bruch.uni-koblenz.de (bruch.uni-koblenz.de [141.26.64.66]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by deliver.uni-koblenz.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3DBC1789A633 for ; Wed, 25 Jun 2008 16:46:30 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <48625A46.1060206@uni-koblenz.de> Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2008 16:46:30 +0200 From: Christoph Litauer MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: Performance problems with millions of inodes References: <4862598B.80905@uni-koblenz.de> In-Reply-To: <4862598B.80905@uni-koblenz.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: xfs-bounce@oss.sgi.com Errors-to: xfs-bounce@oss.sgi.com List-Id: xfs To: xfs@oss.sgi.com Christoph Litauer schrieb: > Hi, > > sorry if this has been asked before, I am new to this mailing list. I > didn't find any hints in the FAQ or by googling ... > > I have a backup server driving two kinds of backup software: bacula and > backuppc. bacula saves it's backups on raid1, backuppc on raid2 > (different hardware, but both fast hardware raids). > I have massive performance problems with backuppc which I tracked down > to performance problems of the filesystem on raid2 (I think so). The > main difference between the two backup systems is that backuppc uses > millions of inodes for it's backup (in fact it duplicates the directory > structure of the backup client). > > raid1 consists of 91675 inodes, raid2 of 143646439. The filesystems were > created without any options. raid1 is about 7 TB, raid2 about 10TB. Both > filesystems are mounted with options > '(rw,noatime,nodiratime,ihashsize=65536)'. > > I used bonnie++ to benchmark both filesystems. Here are the results of > 'bonnie++ -u root -f -n 10:0:0:1000': > > raid1: > ------------------- > Sequential Output: 82505 K/sec > Sequential Input : 102192 K/sec > Sequential file creation: 7184/sec > Random file creation : 17277/sec > > raid2: > ------------------- > Sequential Output: 124802 K/sec > Sequential Input : 109158 K/sec > Sequential file creation: 123/sec > Random file creation : 138/sec > > As you can see, raid2's throughput is higher than raid1's. But the file > creation times are rather slow ... > > Maybe the 143 million inodes cause this effect? Any idea how to avoid it? > Just another (xfs_)info about raid2: meta-data=/dev/backuppc/backuppc isize=256 agcount=32, agsize=79691776 blks = sectsz=512 attr=0 data = bsize=4096 blocks=2550136832, imaxpct=25 = sunit=0 swidth=0 blks, unwritten=1 naming =version 2 bsize=4096 log =internal bsize=4096 blocks=32768, version=1 = sectsz=512 sunit=0 blks, lazy-count=0 realtime =none extsz=4096 blocks=0, rtextents=0 -- Regards Christoph ________________________________________________________________________ Christoph Litauer litauer@uni-koblenz.de Uni Koblenz, Computing Center, http://www.uni-koblenz.de/~litauer Postfach 201602, 56016 Koblenz Fon: +49 261 287-1311, Fax: -100 1311 PGP-Fingerprint: F39C E314 2650 650D 8092 9514 3A56 FBD8 79E3 27B2