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 p0RG1Rei242695 for ; Thu, 27 Jan 2011 10:01:27 -0600 Received: from ironport2-out.pppoe.ca (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cuda.sgi.com (Spam Firewall) with ESMTP id E5E59295FA7 for ; Thu, 27 Jan 2011 08:03:51 -0800 (PST) Received: from ironport2-out.pppoe.ca (ironport2-out.teksavvy.com [206.248.154.183]) by cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id mfkGiD1rN8zdzBxU for ; Thu, 27 Jan 2011 08:03:51 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <4D419765.4070805@teksavvy.com> Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2011 11:03:49 -0500 From: Mark Lord MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: xfs: very slow after mount, very slow at umount References: <4D40C8D1.8090202@teksavvy.com> <20110127033011.GH21311@dastard> <4D40EB2F.2050809@teksavvy.com> <4D418B57.1000501@teksavvy.com> 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: Justin Piszcz Cc: Christoph Hellwig , Alex Elder , Linux Kernel , Stan Hoeppner , xfs@oss.sgi.com On 11-01-27 10:40 AM, Justin Piszcz wrote: > > > On Thu, 27 Jan 2011, Mark Lord wrote: .. >> Can you recommend a good set of mkfs.xfs parameters to suit the characteristics >> of this system? Eg. Only a few thousand active inodes, and nearly all files are >> in the 600MB -> 20GB size range. The usage pattern it must handle is up to >> six concurrent streaming writes at the same time as up to three streaming reads, >> with no significant delays permitted on the reads. >> >> That's the kind of workload that I find XFS handles nicely, >> and EXT4 has given me trouble with in the past. .. > I did a load of benchmarks a long time ago testing every mkfs.xfs option there > was, and I found that most of the time (if not all), the defaults were the best. .. I am concerned with fragmentation on the very special workload in this case. I'd really like the 20GB files, written over a 1-2 hour period, to consist of a very few very large extents, as much as possible. Rather than hundreds or thousands of "tiny" MB sized extents. I wonder what the best mkfs.xfs parameters might be to encourage that? Cheers _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs