[Top] [All Lists]

Re: What are the correct mkfs.xfs parameters for a lying WD-EARS HDD?

To: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: What are the correct mkfs.xfs parameters for a lying WD-EARS HDD?
From: Matthias Schniedermeyer <ms@xxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 9 Mar 2010 22:41:31 +0100
Cc: xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <20100308234755.GA20269@xxxxxxx>
References: <20100308221044.GA17830@xxxxxxx> <4B957E03.9090000@xxxxxxxxxxx> <20100308234755.GA20269@xxxxxxx>
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.19 (2009-01-05)
On 09.03.2010 00:47, Matthias Schniedermeyer wrote:
> On 08.03.2010 16:45, Eric Sandeen wrote:
> > Matthias Schniedermeyer wrote:
> > > Hi
> > > 
> > > 
> > > More than a month ago i bought 4 Western Digital WD15EARS (1.5 TB) which 
> > > are (AFAIK) the first general/commercial available 4k sector SATA-HDDs.
> > > 
> > > Unfortunatly the HDDs lie about the 4k physical sector size and the most 
> > > prominent drawback is a worse than abysmal delete performance.
> > > ("Normal" Read & Write-performance is OK)
> > > 
> > > So if i wanted to (re-)mkfs the filesystems what would the correct 
> > > parameters be?
> > 
> > once that is done, tell mkfs.xfs "-s size=4096" to set the 4k sector size
> So that should be enough?
> Time for backup/mkfs/restore then.

backup/mkfs/restore is finished.

I'm currently testing delete-performance.
And it improved to abysmal performance. (As expected)

Read-latency, while deleting, has also improved drastically. Before the 
FS was near unusable while deleting. But that is also to be expected 
from such a HDD when it is doing RMW like there is no tomorrow. ;-)

Bis denn

Real Programmers consider "what you see is what you get" to be just as 
bad a concept in Text Editors as it is in women. No, the Real Programmer
wants a "you asked for it, you got it" text editor -- complicated, 
cryptic, powerful, unforgiving, dangerous.

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