From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from relay.sgi.com (relay1.corp.sgi.com [137.38.102.111]) by oss.sgi.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7F92D7F3F for ; Tue, 13 Jan 2015 14:13:25 -0600 (CST) Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda1.sgi.com [192.48.157.11]) by relay1.corp.sgi.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4D6F58F8040 for ; Tue, 13 Jan 2015 12:13:24 -0800 (PST) Received: from smtp.welcomes-you.com (welcomes-you.com [144.76.218.113]) by cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id amIRUNGdcOfL1QCz for ; Tue, 13 Jan 2015 12:13:21 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <54B57C59.9070207@aei.mpg.de> Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2015 21:13:13 +0100 From: Carsten Aulbert MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: extremely slow file creation/deletion after xfs ran full References: <54B387A1.6000807@aei.mpg.de> <54B3CC6A.4080405@aei.mpg.de> <20150112155206.GD25944@bfoster.bfoster> <54B3F19D.6030307@aei.mpg.de> <20150112163749.GE25944@bfoster.bfoster> <54B40552.50106@aei.mpg.de> <54B57ACD.60600@hardwarefreak.com> In-Reply-To: <54B57ACD.60600@hardwarefreak.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 Errors-To: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com Sender: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com To: Stan Hoeppner , Brian Foster Cc: xfs@oss.sgi.com Hi Stan On 01/13/2015 09:06 PM, Stan Hoeppner wrote: > This workload seems more suited to a database than a filesystem. Though > surely you've already considered such, and chose not to go that route. > Yepp, but as we do not fully control the server software and need to work further on the binary blobs arriving, a database is also not that well suited for it, but yes, we looked into it (and run mysql, marida, cassandra, mongo, postgresql, ...) > With high fragmentation you get lots of seeking. What model disks are > these? What is your RAID10 geometry? Are your partitions properly > aligned to that geometry, and to the drives (512n/512e)? Disks are 2TB Hitachi SATA drives (Ultrastar, HUA722020ALA330). As these are some yrs old, they are native 512byte ones. They are connected via an Areca 1261ML controller with a Supermicro backplane. RAID striping is not ideal (128kByte per member disk) and thus our xfs layout is not ideal as well. Things we plan to change with the next attempt ;) After the arrival of "advanced format" HDD and SSDs we usually try to align everything to full 1 MByte or larger, just to be sure any combination of 512b, 4kb, ... will eventually align :) Cheers Carsten _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs