xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: mkfs.xfs questions

To: Iustin Pop <iusty@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: mkfs.xfs questions
From: Christian Kujau <lists@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 1 Dec 2006 23:59:08 +0000 (GMT)
Cc: xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <20061201183034.GA20595@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <20061129174553.e0ef3465.jasmin@xxxxxxxxxxx> <Pine.LNX.4.64.0612010410530.3735@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20061201183034.GA20595@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: xfs-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx
On Fri, 1 Dec 2006, Iustin Pop wrote:
I don't understand how you took that conclusion. The explanations refer
to the default log size. I believe the original poster asked about the
performance advantage of *raising* the log size above the default values
for internal logs,

I was under the assumption that the OP asked about altering the size of the log at all and the manpage only states a reason for *decreasing* the logsize.

and my impression is that metadata-intensive
workloads benefit from increasing the log size (however no hard numbers
are available).

As no numbers are known to me either, I did not see a point in increasing the log, hence my statement.

A while back when mkfs.xfs had more conservative default value, bigger log
sizes indeed helped for big filesystems.

As I've done a few benchmarks[0] for different filesystems lately I might find some time to play around with different fs tweaks...

Christian.

[0] http://nerdbynature.de/wp/?cat=4
--
BOFH excuse #353:

Second-system effect.


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