xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: performance patches

To: Paul Schutte <paul@xxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: performance patches
From: Steve Lord <lord@xxxxxxx>
Date: 26 Apr 2002 10:53:31 -0500
Cc: Thor Lancelot Simon <tls@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <3CC976ED.2C947B0F@xxxxxxxx>
References: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0204260900070.26820-100000@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <3CC95F9A.91A4F784@xxxxxxxx> <1019831421.23258.16.camel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20020426110215.A29694@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <3CC976ED.2C947B0F@xxxxxxxx>
Sender: owner-linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
On Fri, 2002-04-26 at 10:49, Paul Schutte wrote:
> I know that it grows with the size, but the rate is much too slow.
> If you create a 2Gb filesystem, you will have a 1200b log.
> If you create a 64Gb filesystem, you still have the same 1200b log.
> (That was still the case when a have set up my mailserver a month
> ago).
> 
> If you have 80 clients logging in on a 8Gb partition as in his case,
> you can be sure to have your performance limited by your
> 1200b log.
> 1200b is good for a workstation, not for a high performance server.
> How was he suppose to know that.
> 
> The size of the filesystem does not matter as much as the amount
> of I/O that you expect, as Steve pointed out.
> Larger filesystems obviously have potential for more I/O.
> 
> Maybe I put this a bit harsh, but I am trying to defend XFS's honour.
> All the people that I encountered that said XFS's performace sucks,
> used the default log size.
> After corrrecting their mistake, they were impressed by XFS.
> I bet that we have lost a lot of people because of a too small
> log size.
> 
> Paul
> 

There is a new batch of mkfs changes coming down the pipe, when we merge
this over I will play with the default mkfs sizes. And if someone can
make xfs_growfs work on the log there is a case of virtual beer in it
for them ;-) That is the ultimate solution here.

Steve

-- 

Steve Lord                                      voice: +1-651-683-3511
Principal Engineer, Filesystem Software         email: lord@xxxxxxx


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