From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda2.sgi.com [192.48.176.25]) by oss.sgi.com (8.14.3/8.14.3/SuSE Linux 0.8) with ESMTP id n7KFNA9W103488 for ; Thu, 20 Aug 2009 10:23:20 -0500 Received: from mail.sandeen.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cuda.sgi.com (Spam Firewall) with ESMTP id A83103E6661 for ; Thu, 20 Aug 2009 08:23:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.sandeen.net (sandeen.net [209.173.210.139]) by cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id HebpOBl6p2Hdr3Zo for ; Thu, 20 Aug 2009 08:23:59 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <4A8D6A6D.405@sandeen.net> Date: Thu, 20 Aug 2009 10:23:25 -0500 From: Eric Sandeen MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: XFS Best Practices References: In-Reply-To: List-Id: XFS Filesystem from SGI List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com Errors-To: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com To: Jeff Flowers Cc: xfs@oss.sgi.com Jeff Flowers wrote: > I am going to use XFS on a Arch Linux box and I am looking for ways to > maximize XFS performance. According to an article I have read [1], > best XFS performance was reached with a file system formatted with a > 64MB log and mounted with 8 log buffers and atime disabled. But I am > curious, from the prespective of the XFS experts of this list, if this > is still good advice and if it is still relevant, as this article was > published in 2003. Based on the information you've provided about the performance issues you're seeing with your particular workload (i.e., nothing), the existing defaults are perfect for you. :) > Also, I have seen a few people recommend turning off the internal > buffers of hard drives (via hdparm) when using a file system like XFS. > Good advice? When drive write caches lose power it may lead to inconsistencies in a journaling filesystem like xfs, which relies on data hitting the disk in a certain order, more or less. By default xfs issues barriers to enforce this ordering; this has the effect of flushing the write cache to make it safe. In some cases disabling barriers and also disabling write cache may be a good choice. If you "never" lose power (good ups?) then write caching is safe even w/o barriers. -Eric > Thank you! > _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs