On Mon, Jun 02, 2003 at 09:29:56PM -0400, Wendy Cheng wrote:
> Great thanks ! - but these are kind of obivous.
Why not post the XFS and ext2 numbers you are seeing currently
with your current filesystem geometry (esp. xfs_info output),
mount options, and kernel build options, and then any benchmark
variations that that the suggested options make, then it might
be clearer where to look.
There are plenty more knobs to tweak, yes. You should also
check that you are not doing any extra checks (e.g. do you have
debug or ACLs enabled?) that are not being done in ext2.
cheers.
> Are there more ? :). Could I turn off / delay
> kupdated and assume that when incore log buffers
> are full, it would be automatically flushed into
> disk without kupdated's help ? We have lots
> of memory to spare and have turned on highmem IO.
>
> Wendy
> ---------
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Nathan Scott" <nathans@xxxxxxx>
> To: "Wendy Cheng" <s_wendy_cheng@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: "xfs mailing list" <linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Monday, June 02, 2003 7:07 PM
> Subject: Re: xfs performance tuning
>
>
> | On Mon, Jun 02, 2003 at 06:15:11PM -0400, Wendy Cheng wrote:
> | > We're trying out XFS using SPECsfs benchmark and
> | > could only get ~ half of the IOPS when compared
> | > with EXT2. It might not be a fair comparison since EXT2
> | > is not a journaling file system but would love to know
> | > any tuning parameter to boost the number. Could someone
> | > help out ? Thanks...
> |
> | I would suggest starting with the mkfs options "-l size=XXX" and
> | "-i size=XXX" (log size and inode size). Increasing the number
> | of incore log buffers you're using ("-o logbufs=XXX" mount option)
> | might help you too.
> |
> | cheers.
> |
> | --
> | Nathan
> |
--
Nathan
|