| To: | David Chinner <dgc@xxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: PARTIAL TAKE 964999 - lazy superblock counters for XFS |
| From: | Andi Kleen <andi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Fri, 25 May 2007 08:53:03 +0200 |
| Cc: | Andi Kleen <andi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx, sgi.bugs.xfs@xxxxxxxxxxxx |
| In-reply-to: | <20070524232405.GE85884050@xxxxxxx> |
| References: | <20070522075932.E665058CA531@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <p73wsyxdhb3.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20070524232405.GE85884050@xxxxxxx> |
| Sender: | xfs-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| User-agent: | Mutt/1.4.2.1i |
> If you are running 100 concurrent transactions to your small > filesystem, then yest, it will also help. But that sort of load > is usually seen on file servers or large compute boxes doing lots > of file manipuations.... But won't you do less sb writes on any workload since the data is stored elsewhere? -Andi |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: raid5: I lost a XFS file system due to a minor IDE cable problem, Alberto Alonso |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: raid5: I lost a XFS file system due to a minor IDE cable problem, David Chinner |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: PARTIAL TAKE 964999 - lazy superblock counters for XFS, David Chinner |
| Next by Thread: | PARTIAL TAKE 964999 - lazy superblock counters for XFS, David Chinner |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |