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 p58LGXlw118194 for ; Wed, 8 Jun 2011 16:16:33 -0500 Received: from mail.sandeen.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cuda.sgi.com (Spam Firewall) with ESMTP id 1A92E4AC93F for ; Wed, 8 Jun 2011 14:16:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.sandeen.net (sandeen.net [63.231.237.45]) by cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id REh4BMQzagPzBvmk for ; Wed, 08 Jun 2011 14:16:32 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <4DEFE6B0.9050200@sandeen.net> Date: Wed, 08 Jun 2011 16:16:32 -0500 From: Eric Sandeen MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: Small files perform much faster on newly formatted fs? References: <20110607163742.GH28625@pyre.virge.net> <201106080911.11286@zmi.at> <20110608122638.GQ28625@pyre.virge.net> <4DEFE10E.1070509@sandeen.net> In-Reply-To: <4DEFE10E.1070509@sandeen.net> 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: Norbert Veber Cc: Michael Monnerie , xfs@oss.sgi.com On 6/8/11 3:52 PM, Eric Sandeen wrote: > On 6/8/11 7:26 AM, Norbert Veber wrote: >> On Wed, Jun 08, 2011 at 09:11:10AM +0200, Michael Monnerie wrote: >>> On Dienstag, 7. Juni 2011 Norbert Veber wrote: >>>> 20 seconds vs 3+ minutes?! The only difference I can see is >>>> lazy-count=1 and a larger agcount. Sunit and swidth were also set >>>> automatically by mkfs this time. >>> >>> Then retry mounting the old fs with sunit= and swidth= parameters. Are >>> they on the same disks? What are your disks (number, kind)? >> >> Yes its already mounted this way as I mentioned in my original message: >> /dev/mapper/vg0-shared on /shared type xfs (rw,noatime,sunit=128,swidth=256) >> >> Both filesystems are on the same MD raid 5 which consists of 3 1 tb WD >> Black hard drive. > > The 2 filesystems are at different locations on the disks, so that will make > some difference. > > It's probably also possible that your old log is not stripe-aligned. .... or that one or the other partition on your raid5 is not aligned? -Eric > Not sure what else it might be ... You did get the units right on your > stripe specification at mount-time, good job! ;) > > -Eric _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs