From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from relay.sgi.com (relay2.corp.sgi.com [137.38.102.29]) by oss.sgi.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CD0F77F50 for ; Tue, 25 Aug 2015 19:39:19 -0500 (CDT) Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda1.sgi.com [192.48.157.11]) by relay2.corp.sgi.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9217E304051 for ; Tue, 25 Aug 2015 17:39:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-wi0-f177.google.com (mail-wi0-f177.google.com [209.85.212.177]) by cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id 0dASSxU4qGXAtdaJ (version=TLSv1 cipher=RC4-SHA bits=128 verify=NO) for ; Tue, 25 Aug 2015 17:39:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: by widdq5 with SMTP id dq5so31004460wid.1 for ; Tue, 25 Aug 2015 17:39:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: from minas-tirith.valinor (17.Red-83-42-75.dynamicIP.rima-tde.net. [83.42.75.17]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id go5sm5001687wib.5.2015.08.25.17.39.13 for (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 25 Aug 2015 17:39:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: from minas-tirith.valinor (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by minas-tirith.valinor (Postfix) with ESMTP id 70E36181DA4 for ; Wed, 26 Aug 2015 02:39:12 +0200 (CEST) Subject: Re: Performance impact of mkfs.xfs vs mkfs.xfs -f References: <55DCE1CF.5030708@sandeen.net> <20150825234300.GN714@dastard> From: "Carlos E. R." Message-ID: <55DD0AAF.9090401@opensuse.org> Date: Wed, 26 Aug 2015 02:39:11 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20150825234300.GN714@dastard> 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: XFS mailing list -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 On 2015-08-26 01:43, Dave Chinner wrote: > On Tue, Aug 25, 2015 at 04:09:33PM -0700, Shrinand Javadekar > wrote: >> Formatted the new disks with mkfs.xfs. Ran the workload. >> Reformatted the disks with mkfs.xfs -f. Ran the workload. > Anyway, please post the output so we can see the differences for > ourselves. What we need is mkfs output in both cases, and xfs_info > output in both cases after mount. Suggestion (for the OP): To reformat a third time without "-f", you can reformat as ext4, then format a second time as xfs. But to imitate a new disk, you have to zero it with dd. Then you can replay the test and obtain the requested data :-) - -- Cheers / Saludos, Carlos E. R. (from 13.1 x86_64 "Bottle" (Minas Tirith)) - -- Cheers / Saludos, Carlos E. R. (from 13.1 x86_64 "Bottle" (Minas Tirith)) -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (GNU/Linux) iF4EAREIAAYFAlXdCq8ACgkQja8UbcUWM1zCBgEAoMjVMIAlp0fKEO3CZKtZ/HNY Ek7joAO+gCVO++IJ2boBAIuVMiLnOug7fG46s1vkFEUhWsvUYQbPoqbhCNyYki/u =LcBk -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs