From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S268497AbUHYHXx (ORCPT ); Wed, 25 Aug 2004 03:23:53 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S268505AbUHYHXw (ORCPT ); Wed, 25 Aug 2004 03:23:52 -0400 Received: from avocet.mail.pas.earthlink.net ([207.217.120.50]:63640 "EHLO avocet.mail.pas.earthlink.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S268497AbUHYHXu (ORCPT ); Wed, 25 Aug 2004 03:23:50 -0400 Date: Wed, 25 Aug 2004 03:23:43 -0400 To: mcetra@navynet.it Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: Production comparison between 2.4.27 and 2.6.8.1 Message-ID: <20040825072343.GA288@rushmore> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.1i From: rwhron@earthlink.net Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org > What can I try to improve performance ? In benchmarks I've done, XFS was helped significantly by the mkfs/mount options in the XFS FAQ. (look for the dbench question). http://oss.sgi.com/projects/xfs/faq.html mkfs -t xfs -l size=32768b -f /dev/device mount -t xfs -o logbufs=8,logbsize=32768 /dev/device /mountpoint -- Randy Hron http://home.earthlink.net/~rwhron/kernel/bigbox.html