On Fri, 2003-12-12 at 17:21, Matt Stegman wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I'm testing XFS filesystems on a software RAID5 (SuSE 9.0, kernel
> 2.4.21-144-athlon). After looking up info about the thousands upon
> thousands of "raid5: switching cache buffer size, 512 -> 4096" messages I
> was getting in syslog, I'm trying out what Steve Lord suggested in
> http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=linux-xfs&m=105613069315201&w=2
> ... which is to specify "-s size=4096" with mkfs.
>
> Using the sector size of 4096 seems to increase performance on the RAID,
> especially on sequential reading and writing. and I ran into only one
> problem, when trying to grow the filesystem while it was under heavy load
> (four copies of 'cp -a /usr/share /mnt/xfs'). xfs_growfs quit with
> "XFS_IOC_FSGROWFSDATA xfsctl failed: Input/output error." When growing
> without load it worked just fine.
>
> I've run some bonnie++, tiobench, and custom benchmarks, and seen no other
> problems. I just thought I'd say that using the 4096 byte sector size
> seems to help a lot with software RAID5. No more constant flushing of the
> cache buffer, that's for sure.
So what about hardware RAID5?
js
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
|