xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Improving XFS desktop performance?

To: Pedro Ribeiro <pedrib@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: Improving XFS desktop performance?
From: Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 2009 17:43:16 +1100
Cc: xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <74fd948d0911191805m30c34b51m97c2a998dbe0bac3@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <74fd948d0911191805m30c34b51m97c2a998dbe0bac3@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17)
On Fri, Nov 20, 2009 at 02:05:01AM +0000, Pedro Ribeiro wrote:
> And on /etc/fstab mount it as;
> /dev/mapper/target      noatime,logbufs=8,logbsize=256k
> 
> After the above, my delete speed improved drastically.

That would be the logbsize option your specified - logbufs=9 is the
default.

> Searching around the net I was able to find that using "lazy-count=1"
> on mkfs would give a performance increase - how much would that be,
> enough for me to do a full backup, format with that option + 128m log
> and then restore all again?

It depends on your workload. If you are doing lots of stuff in
parallel, then it makes a big difference because it removes the
superblock as a single point of contention. It also has the effect
of reducing the latency of fsync() if allocation was required.

Neither will affect typical desktop workloads unless you are
doing multi-media work, in which case the latency reduction of
lazy-count=1 make a big difference.

> And anything else you recommend?

No, the defaults set most of the best options for performance.
We probably should set lazy-count=1 as the default now that most
distros have picked up kernels that support that option now.

Cheers,

Dave.
-- 
Dave Chinner
david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>