xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: stable xfs

To: Ming Zhang <mingz@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: stable xfs
From: Chris Wedgwood <cw@xxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2006 09:17:07 -0700
Cc: Peter Grandi <pg_xfs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Linux XFS <linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx>
In-reply-to: <1153404502.2768.50.camel@localhost.localdomain>
References: <1153150223.4532.24.camel@localhost.localdomain> <17595.47312.720883.451573@base.ty.sabi.co.UK> <1153262166.2669.267.camel@localhost.localdomain> <17597.27469.834961.186850@base.ty.sabi.co.UK> <1153272044.2669.282.camel@localhost.localdomain> <17598.2129.999932.67127@base.ty.sabi.co.UK> <1153314670.2691.14.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20060720061527.GB18135@tuatara.stupidest.org> <1153404502.2768.50.camel@localhost.localdomain>
Sender: xfs-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx
On Thu, Jul 20, 2006 at 10:08:22AM -0400, Ming Zhang wrote:

> we mainly handle large media files like 20-50GB. so file number is
> not too much. but file size is large.

xfs_repair usually deals with that fairly well in reality (much better
than lots of small files anyhow)

> hope i never need to run repair, but i do need to defrag from time
> to time.

if you preallocate you can avoid that (this is what i do, i
preallocate in the replication daemon)

> hope this does not hold true for a 15x750GB SATA raid5. ;)

that's ~10TB or so, my guess is that a repair there would take some
GBs of ram

it would be interesting to test it if you had the time

there is a 'formular' for working out how much ram is needed roughly
(steve lord posted it a long time ago, hopefully someone can find that
and repost is)

> say XFS can make use of parallel storage by using multiple
> allocation groups. but XFS need to be built over one block
> device. so if i have 4 smaller raid, i have to use LVM to glue them
> before i create XFS over it right? but then u said XFS over LVM or N
> MD is not good?

with recent kernels it shouldn't be a problem, the recursive nature of
the block layer changed so you no longer blow up as badly as people
did in the past (also, XFS tends to use less stack these days)


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