xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: ZFS, XFS, and EXT4 compared

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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <1188454611.23311.13.camel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <1188457666.24970.94.camel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
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>