There is no hard and fast rule for this, a larger log is only really
useful if you
ok. saw something in the archives about logfile size asked within the
past 2 days but it really didn't give any clues to this question.
As the FAQ states, specifing an alternate logfile size (and also other
options) at the time of mkfs, can increase performance.
here's a quick layout of my partitions on (using an add-on Promise
Ultra100 ide controller card):
Filesystem Size Used Avail Use% Mounted on
/dev/hde1 576M 69M 507M 12% /
/dev/hde5 4.3G 2.3G 2.0G 53% /home
/dev/hde6 207M 280k 206M 1% /tmp
/dev/hde7 3.0G 2.5G 571M 82% /usr
/dev/hde8 787M 84M 704M 11% /var
/dev/hdf5 6.2G 2.8G 3.4G 45% /usr/src/RPM
/dev/hdg6 16G 14G 3.3G 80% /mnt/win_c2
/dev/hdg5 21G 33M 19G 1% /extra1
/dev/hdf6 3.4G 3.3G 165M 96% /mnt/win_d2
I'm mainly concerned about /dev/hdg5 (/extra1). I'm using it for video
capturing and am curious as to optimizing it for write performance.
Logfile size recommendations? other options?
Since they SGI touches on this in the "howto make an xfs", i'm sure
there will be plenty of others asking the same question i am...but with
raid & larger hdd's. ;-)
are doing metadata intensive operations over extended periods of time and
we have found that more iclogs are just as useful (the logbugs=8 mount
I cannot remember right now, but mkfs may automatically make the
log bigger on large devices, of course large may be past the 2 Tbyte limit
For write performance a larger log will not help, more iclogs might, but
not by much.
The other thing to consider with larger logs is that recovery after a crash
can take longer.