From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda1.sgi.com [192.48.157.11]) by oss.sgi.com (8.14.3/8.14.3/SuSE Linux 0.8) with ESMTP id p3RKF2CK230032 for ; Wed, 27 Apr 2011 15:15:03 -0500 Received: from mail.sandeen.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cuda.sgi.com (Spam Firewall) with ESMTP id 3A9F111A96E5 for ; Wed, 27 Apr 2011 13:18:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.sandeen.net (sandeen.net [63.231.237.45]) by cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id fqLz6UQhKYOAl6FE for ; Wed, 27 Apr 2011 13:18:34 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <4DB87A19.30306@sandeen.net> Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2011 15:18:33 -0500 From: Eric Sandeen MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: 2 question about XFS fragmentation and _fsr: SPLITTED Q1:sparse files References: <20110411214238.GE21395@dastard> <45DD2814B0C84BF3AFD76721A0178E50@myXP> In-Reply-To: <45DD2814B0C84BF3AFD76721A0178E50@myXP> 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: Janos Haar Cc: linux-xfs@oss.sgi.com On 4/26/11 4:51 PM, Janos Haar wrote: >>> In the result, actually we have >6TB images on the 3TB disk, wich is >>> 97.9% fragmented. >> >> How are you determining that figure? > > [root@UNISTORE admin]# cat xfs_get_frat_ratio > echo loop0 > xfs_db -c frag -r /dev/loop0 > [root@UNISTORE admin]# ./xfs_get_frat_ratio > loop0 > actual 7650952, ideal 752501, fragmentation factor 90.16% so you had 7650952 extents on the fs, ideally you'd have 752501, or so xfs_db says... Another way of looking at this is that you have about 10 extents per file on average. Depending on the size of the files, this may be perfectly fine. Is, for example, a 10G file in ten 1G extents really a problem? I doubt that fragmentation is your performance problem here. -Eric _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs