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 p3R84ftS205996 for ; Wed, 27 Apr 2011 03:04:41 -0500 Received: from edge20.ethz.ch (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cuda.sgi.com (Spam Firewall) with ESMTP id 98BEE417537 for ; Wed, 27 Apr 2011 01:08:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: from edge20.ethz.ch (edge20.ethz.ch [82.130.99.26]) by cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id iifBjIeDdemneTqv for ; Wed, 27 Apr 2011 01:08:13 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <4DB7CF50.7050204@inf.ethz.ch> Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2011 10:09:52 +0200 From: Benjamin Schindler MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: xfs performance problem References: <4DB72084.8020205@inf.ethz.ch> <4DB74331.3030804@hardwarefreak.com> <4DB7CC01.8090804@dermichi.com> In-Reply-To: <4DB7CC01.8090804@dermichi.com> 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: Michael Weissenbacher Cc: xfs@oss.sgi.com Hi On 04/27/2011 09:55 AM, Michael Weissenbacher wrote: > schrieb Stan Hoeppner: >> Benjamin Schindler put forth on 4/26/2011 2:44 PM: >>> Hi >> Also, slap yourself in the forehead at least 3 times for running your >> root filesystem on RAID 0. That's akin to riding a motorcycle, naked, >> in a blizzard, down a steep, winding, ice covered mountain road with no >> guard rails and a 3000 ft drop. ;) >> > If you are really adventurous and don't care about the data on your root > fs use the following mount options: > logbsize=256k,delaylog,nobarrier > > Personally i would only enable "nobarrier" on Server-Class hardware with > Battery Backup and proper UPS. But since you are using RAID-0 i suppose > you really don't care that much about the data on your root fs. Or stop using raid-0 all together. The performance gain is more than offset by the barriers and it seems using xfs on just a single disk would improve performance a lot more than using raid-0 (with disk failure risk) + risk of corruption due to disabled barriers... or am I missing something? > > Note that both logbsize and delaylog will only have effect on your root > fs if added to grub.conf (real_rootflags=) since remounting won't > activate them. Use "cat /proc/mounts" to see if these options were > really enabled. > > hth, > Michael > > _______________________________________________ > xfs mailing list > xfs@oss.sgi.com > http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs