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 q3E7WScB169767 for ; Sat, 14 Apr 2012 02:32:28 -0500 Received: from greer.hardwarefreak.com (mo-65-41-216-221.sta.embarqhsd.net [65.41.216.221]) by cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id JRcpnWfrMO5ENeMC for ; Sat, 14 Apr 2012 00:32:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.100.53] (gffx.hardwarefreak.com [192.168.100.53]) by greer.hardwarefreak.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D21E16C0B9 for ; Sat, 14 Apr 2012 02:32:26 -0500 (CDT) Message-ID: <4F892808.2040003@hardwarefreak.com> Date: Sat, 14 Apr 2012 02:32:24 -0500 From: Stan Hoeppner MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: XFS: Abysmal write performance because of excessive seeking (allocation groups to blame?) References: <20350.9643.379841.771496@tree.ty.sabi.co.UK> <20350.13616.901974.523140@tree.ty.sabi.co.UK> <4F7F7C25.8040605@hardwarefreak.com> <20120407104912.44881be3@galadriel.home> <4F81F5FD.1090809@hardwarefreak.com> <20120408234555.695e291f@galadriel.home> <4F827341.2000607@hardwarefreak.com> <20120409144558.6072c1eb@galadriel.home> In-Reply-To: Reply-To: stan@hardwarefreak.com List-Id: XFS Filesystem from SGI List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com Errors-To: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com To: xfs@oss.sgi.com On 4/13/2012 2:36 PM, Stefan Ring wrote: >> Let's rerun it with files cached (the machine has 16 GB RAM, so >> every single file must be cached): >> >> # time tar xf test.tar >> >> real 0m50.842s >> user 0m0.809s >> sys 0m13.767s > = > That=92s about the same time I=92m getting on a fresh (non-fragmented) > file system with the RAID 6 volume. > = > Interestingly, the P400=92s successor, the P410 does recognize a setting > that the P400 lacks, which is called elevatorsort. It sounds like this > could make all the difference. Unfortunately, the P400 doesn=92t have > it. I don=92t have a P410 with more than 2 drives to test this, but some > effect should definitely be measurable. > = > Since this finding has piqued my interest again, I=92m willing to invest > a little more time, but I=92m completely occupied for the next few days, > so it will have to wait a while. What configuration are you running right now Stefan? You said you went back to XFS due to the EXT4 lockups, but I can't recall what RAID config you put underneath it this time. -- = Stan _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs