| To: | xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Linux mkfs.xfs parameters for large files |
| From: | "Jamie Tufnell" <diesql@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Tue, 5 Feb 2008 11:42:23 +0000 |
| Dkim-signature: | v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlemail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition; bh=uYLBWO9isJnrQsCkBpmCwf+ZVZGqYdnFQCHLIzZfJgY=; b=GSpQxO5fyh5uqiRjLR/Rvj36vTujRNYtYkUVRBaShXm7hHNwyStG+eABk5In4IZHabKDZbOvahKVQUK+nOJm3yMj9deBBzRVUQXmI/JRZTfQhgfQGx3SKKUZwdyScIE6na+4X4otW469qsKQroXwA+q3tHJcXYCXmg7EhEm59yY= |
| Domainkey-signature: | a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=googlemail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:to:subject:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition; b=VS8gN7dlOGKHoz0MtTSysW8FlPjlP7BCyOhVmz9MK/bG9MRK7U48FdBPRr1df8YGHmkSKSw0Ft5JHt89V6BDMZQj+uuj+SYkxGC7iWOOQnQvBUj5uBRnEQkwovQArOhVDoiHsPNRF70F6CuN+cWALtP3FFJkrogmYNPpyPtEE+Y= |
| Sender: | xfs-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx |
Hi, I've done some research into how to best-prepare our Linux (2.6.18) XFS filesystem for a read-heavy workload of mostly large files (files between 50MB and 500MB) and I have some questions on block-sizes / extents. My experience with other filesystems leads me to believe I should experiment with large block-sizes for this application. In trying to do so, I found that the Linux XFS implementation forces the block size to not exceed the page size -- 4kB -- which seems a bit small in this case. At first, I thought this was *really* bad news for me but I've since read some posts and the impression I'm getting is it's not that big of a deal? Can someone please explain why (if that's true)? I've read that an extent is one or more "continguous" blocks, so should I simply tune the extent size in the same way I was expecting to tune the block-size? Are there any other mkfs.xfs parameters I should experiment with.. so far I plan to use stripe width/unit as the filesystem will be on a striped RAID. Lastly, would you recommend XFS for this application? Is there a better filesystem for what I'm trying to do? Any help greatly appreciated! Thanks, J. |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Returned mail: see transcript for details, Mail Delivery Subsystem |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: RAID needs more to survive a power hit, different /boot layout for example (was Re: draft howto on making raids for surviving a disk crash), Linda Walsh |
| Previous by Thread: | Returned mail: see transcript for details, Mail Delivery Subsystem |
| Next by Thread: | Re: Linux mkfs.xfs parameters for large files, Eric Sandeen |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |