xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Yet Another mkfs.xfs RAID Question

To: Christian.Guggenberger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: Yet Another mkfs.xfs RAID Question
From: Walt H <waltabbyh@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sat, 01 Feb 2003 09:07:03 -0800
Cc: linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <20030201130427.GA8128@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <20030201130427.GA8128@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: linux-xfs-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.3b) Gecko/20030131
Christian Guggenberger wrote:
Hi,

I'm going to set up a new 1.7 TB HW Raid 5 next week.
RAID 5 contains 11 disks, Stripe Unit should be (according to the manual)
128k.
so my mkfs.xfs options will be sunit=256, swidth=2560 for the data section, 
won't they?

I will definitly use internal log, so I'd like to ask, if I should use
logversion 2, and what sunit and swidth values I should use here?
I guess the same as for the data section???

Would I gain something from logversion 2?

thx
Christian



Are you using software md raid or hardware raid? If it's hardware raid 5, the logversion argument shouldn't matter. Software raid is another story. I recently setup a file/database server with a six disk software raid 5 setup. I had time to try different raid chunksizes as well as experiment with version 1 vs. version 2 logs. What I found, for my case, version 2 logs for xfs really helped out in create/delete operations. Particularly deletes. Sequential read/writes were unaffected by the version differences. I ran many Bonnie++ runs as well as created a script that created 2000 directories with 10000 files in each directory and then proceeded to delete the whole lot. Each result was timed, although I don't have any numbers for you. I remember version 2 logs as performing much better for these types of uses. HTH,

-Walt



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