From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list xfs); Sun, 19 Oct 2008 19:55:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda3.sgi.com [192.48.176.15]) by oss.sgi.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11/SuSE Linux 0.7) with ESMTP id m9K2tRaB027947 for ; Sun, 19 Oct 2008 19:55:27 -0700 Received: from sandeen.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cuda.sgi.com (Spam Firewall) with ESMTP id EC9AF1B609A6 for ; Sun, 19 Oct 2008 19:57:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sandeen.net (sandeen.net [209.173.210.139]) by cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id lxjsUFxoee4XSDn3 for ; Sun, 19 Oct 2008 19:57:11 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <48FBF385.2010709@sandeen.net> Date: Sun, 19 Oct 2008 21:57:09 -0500 From: Eric Sandeen MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: XFS slow performance References: <48FBDC47.5080700@ramunia.com> <48FBEBFA.30200@sandeen.net> <48FBED80.60604@ramunia.com> In-Reply-To: <48FBED80.60604@ramunia.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: xfs-bounce@oss.sgi.com Errors-to: xfs-bounce@oss.sgi.com List-Id: xfs To: Muhammad Fakhrul Rozi Bin Mohd Seth Cc: xfs-oss Muhammad Fakhrul Rozi Bin Mohd Seth wrote: > Thanks for the reply; No problem; please keep the list on cc: so that others with similar problems will have something to find on google :) > Yes i have test the other's and it is more worst than XFS. > So here the snapshot is provide by the LVM not the XFS itself? That's right; xfs itself has no snapshot capability. It's done at the block layer (via lvm in your case). > Have face any issue on snapshot using LVM before? I don't use snapshots much so can't say, but they do have overhead. You may have more luck asking for suggestions on the lvm users list. There might be some tuning you can do. -Eric > Regards > Rozi