| To: | Justin Piszcz <jpiszcz@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: Default mount options (that suck less). |
| From: | James Braid <jamesb@xxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Thu, 1 Nov 2007 00:47:31 +0000 |
| Cc: | xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| In-reply-to: | <Pine.LNX.4.64.0710310727090.8545@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| References: | <20071029075657.GA84369978@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <4725FBB4.1010400@xxxxxxxxxxx> <47267EC7.8000906@xxxxxxx> <177CA06B-41D3-4E4A-9EA6-5688C952CD63@xxxxxxxxxxxx> <Pine.LNX.4.64.0710310727090.8545@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Sender: | xfs-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx |
On 31 Oct 2007, at 11:27, Justin Piszcz wrote: Impressive, what architecture do you run? ia64 or x86_64? What performance differences did you see? It's all just commodity hardware - HP DL385 x86_64 server with a pile of cheap Infortrend RAID arrays. Performance wise we're limited by a single HBA to the disks, which is fine for this particular application because we saturate the network first. xfs_repair takes a good 36 hours or so and 16-ish GB of memory to run. (we had to run it recently, thanks to a flakey RAID) |
| Previous by Date: | Re: Default mount options (that suck less)., James Braid |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: [PATCH] Implement fallocate, Lachlan McIlroy |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: Default mount options (that suck less)., Justin Piszcz |
| Next by Thread: | Re: Default mount options (that suck less)., Eric Sandeen |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |