| To: | xfs mailing list <linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: xfs performance tuning |
| From: | Nathan Scott <nathans@xxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Wed, 4 Jun 2003 08:15:33 +1000 |
| In-reply-to: | <20030603085416.GA7845@thomas.arkena.com>; from thomas@arkena.dk on Tue, Jun 03, 2003 at 10:54:16AM +0200 |
| References: | <3512.1054466831@ocs3.intra.ocs.com.au> <BAY2-DAV57lTbOzrPC40003086a@hotmail.com> <20030602230713.GC714@frodo> <BAY2-DAV29U29AhsFt4000049f7@hotmail.com> <20030603051946.GA1165@frodo> <20030603085416.GA7845@thomas.arkena.com> |
| Sender: | linux-xfs-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| User-agent: | Mutt/1.2.5i |
On Tue, Jun 03, 2003 at 10:54:16AM +0200, Thomas Kirk wrote: > Hep > > On Tue, Jun 03, 2003 at 03:19:46PM +1000, Nathan Scott wrote: > > > 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. > > Does ACL decrase XFS performance considerable? > Having ACLs enabled means slightly more work must be done, but not much. Having an ACL set on an inode means still more work must be done, including additional disk IO when the ACL is not being stored directly in the inode, so that can have an impact on benchmarks. Since ext2 wont be doing ACl stuff in the stock 2.4.20 kernels, it makes for a more direct comparison if ACLs are not enabled in XFS too, of course. cheers. -- Nathan |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: Quota management, Nathan Scott |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: Kernel dump from 2.4.18-27SGI_XFS1.2.0, Seth Mos |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: xfs performance tuning, Thomas Kirk |
| Next by Thread: | Re: xfs performance tuning, Wendy Cheng |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |