| To: | Nathan Scott <nscott@xxxxxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: ZFS, XFS, and EXT4 compared |
| From: | Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Thu, 30 Aug 2007 14:20:02 +0100 |
| Cc: | "Jeffrey W. Baker" <jwbaker@xxxxxxx>, zfs-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx, linux-ext4@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |
| In-reply-to: | <1188457666.24970.94.camel@edge.yarra.acx> |
| References: | <1188454611.23311.13.camel@toonses.gghcwest.com> <1188457666.24970.94.camel@edge.yarra.acx> |
| Sender: | xfs-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| User-agent: | Mutt/1.4.2.3i |
On Thu, Aug 30, 2007 at 05:07:46PM +1000, Nathan Scott wrote: > To improve metadata performance, you have many options with XFS (which > ones are useful depends on the type of metadata workload) - you can try > a v2 format log, and mount with "-o logbsize=256k", try increasing the > directory block size (e.g. mkfs.xfs -nsize=16k, etc), and also the log > size (mkfs.xfs -lsize=XXXXXXb). Okay, these suggestions are one too often now. v2 log and large logs/log buffers are the almost universal suggestions, and we really need to make these defaults. XFS is already the laughing stock of the Linux community due to it's absurdely bad default settings. |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: [PATCH] log replay should not overwrite newer ondisk inodes, Timothy Shimmin |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: [PATCH] log replay should not overwrite newer ondisk inodes, David Chinner |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: ZFS, XFS, and EXT4 compared, Nathan Scott |
| Next by Thread: | Re: ZFS, XFS, and EXT4 compared, Eric Sandeen |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |