xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Q: Filesystem block sizes available?

To: Steve Lord <lord@xxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: Q: Filesystem block sizes available?
From: Roy Sigurd Karlsbakk <roy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2001 16:01:25 +0100 (CET)
Cc: XFS Mailing list <linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx>, Tux mailing list <tux-list@xxxxxxxxxx>
In-reply-to: <1005662970.17836.0.camel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: owner-linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
> Right now the filesystem block size on linux is restricted to the
> machine page size. Fixing this has been on the todo list for a
> long time now, but other projects keep getting given higher priority.
> The first thing to appear would be support for smaller block sizes,
> not bigger ones - the problem in linux is that the kernel was really
> not designed to provide chunks of memory larger than 1 page with any
> reliability (i.e. there is a good chance it will fail).
>
> Anyway, having said that, xfs will do larger I/O than this, files should
> get layed out contiguous on disk, and both the read and write path will
> end up issuing larger requests to the scsi devices.

ok. So the fs block size really doesn't matter - is that it? I'm trying to
set up streaming of multi-gigabyte files from a file system, and it's all
too slow. Even with a RAID-0 with 5 drives (SCSI-3/160MBps/10k spin), I
cannot get the speed higher than around 30 on ext2.

Do you or anyone else have some idea of when the TUX/XFS potch
incompatibility problem will be solved? I need Tux (the in-kernel web
server from RedHat) in this project as well...

thanks

roy

--
Roy Sigurd Karlsbakk, MCSE, MCNE, CLS, LCA

Computers are like air conditioners.
They stop working when you open Windows.


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>