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 q3JJrTq6114238 for ; Thu, 19 Apr 2012 14:53:30 -0500 Received: from smtp.sauce.co.nz (smtp.sauce.co.nz [210.48.49.72]) by cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id VMtoAgjnrPFVzCmH (version=TLSv1 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Thu, 19 Apr 2012 12:53:27 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <4F906D8A.9040504@sauce.co.nz> Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2012 07:54:50 +1200 From: Richard Scobie MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: Fragmentation Issue We Are Having List-Id: XFS Filesystem from SGI List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed" Sender: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com Errors-To: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com To: xfs@oss.sgi.com Cc: b.candler@pobox.com Brian Candler wrote: -------------------------- Ah, that's new to me. So with inode32 and sysctl fs.xfs.rotorstep=255 you can get roughly the same locality benefit for sequentially-written files as inode64? (Aside: if you have two processes writing files to two different directories, will they end up mixing their files in the same AG? That could hurt performance at readback time if reading them sequentially) ----------------------------- The "filestreams" mount option may be of use here, see: http://xfs.org/docs/xfsdocs-xml-dev/XFS_User_Guide//tmp/en-US/html/ch06s16.html and page 17 of: http://oss.sgi.com/projects/xfs/training/xfs_slides_06_allocators.pdf Regards, Richard _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs