From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda3.sgi.com [192.48.176.15]) by oss.sgi.com (8.14.3/8.14.3/SuSE Linux 0.8) with ESMTP id p1JKVHOi038478 for ; Sat, 19 Feb 2011 14:31:17 -0600 Received: from greer.hardwarefreak.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cuda.sgi.com (Spam Firewall) with ESMTP id C770A1DD57C2 for ; Sat, 19 Feb 2011 12:33:58 -0800 (PST) Received: from greer.hardwarefreak.com (mo-65-41-216-221.sta.embarqhsd.net [65.41.216.221]) by cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id lwyuuEiU1bWKCbNb for ; Sat, 19 Feb 2011 12:33:58 -0800 (PST) Received: from [192.168.100.53] (gffx.hardwarefreak.com [192.168.100.53]) by greer.hardwarefreak.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1F7916C130 for ; Sat, 19 Feb 2011 14:33:58 -0600 (CST) Message-ID: <4D602936.10400@hardwarefreak.com> Date: Sat, 19 Feb 2011 14:33:58 -0600 From: Stan Hoeppner MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: External log size limitations References: <4D5C1D77.1060000@spinpro.com> <20110217003233.GH13052@dastard> <4D5E8FAD.9080802@spinpro.com> <4D5ECEC5.2020701@hardwarefreak.com> <4D5ED70B.7030504@spinpro.com> <4D5F3EBF.3030309@hardwarefreak.com> <20110219100207.GA24537@citd.de> In-Reply-To: <20110219100207.GA24537@citd.de> 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: xfs@oss.sgi.com Matthias Schniedermeyer put forth on 2/19/2011 4:02 AM: > On 18.02.2011 21:53, Stan Hoeppner wrote: >> Fist, sorry for the length. I can tend to get windy talking shop. :) >> >> Andrew Klaassen put forth on 2/18/2011 2:31 PM: >> >>> It's IBM and LSI gear, so I'm crossing my fingers that a Linux install >>> will be relatively painless. >> >> Ahh, good. At least, so far it seems so. ;) >> >>> I thought that the filesystem block size was still limited to the kernel >>> page size, which is 4K on x86 systems. >>> >>> http://oss.sgi.com/projects/xfs/ >>> >>> "The maximum filesystem block size is the page size of the kernel, which >>> is 4K on x86 architecture." >>> >>> Is this no longer true? It would be awesome news if it wasn't. >> >> My mistake. It would appear you are limited to the page size, which, as >> I mentioned, is still 8 KiB for most distros. > > You confuse that with STACK-size. Yes, I did. However... > The page-size is, and has always been, 4 KiB (on X86). To bring this back around to the OP's original question, do you agree or disagree with my assertion that a 64 KiB XFS block size will yield little if any advantage over a 4 KiB block size, and may in fact have some disadvantages, specifically with small file random IO? -- Stan _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs