xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: XFS Test Results Interpretation

To: "xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx" <xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: XFS Test Results Interpretation
From: Andrew Debenham <adebenham@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2010 07:17:24 -0400
Accept-language: en-US
Acceptlanguage: en-US
Thread-index: Act0Lzgi2xnZiG0DTLyIU1xaIvo0tg==
Thread-topic: XFS Test Results Interpretation
Stan -

Thank you for your response and I apologize if my initial explanation wasn't 
clear.  The applications will be running on identical hardware (see specs. 
below) but each application will be running on a dedicated system.  My original 
spreadsheet had this information but it obviously didn't come through 
correctly.  I would like to tune the XFS file systems to accommodate the two 
different applications.  As I mentioned before, I experimented with various 
parameters (e.g. sunit, swidth, log size, etc.) and different mounting options 
(e.g. logbufs, logbsize, etc.), but it sounds like I may have been wasting my 
time attempting to benchmark the file systems.  Any information or 
recommendations you can provide would be greatly appreciated.  Also, can you 
recommend a tool that would be good for benchmarking an XFS file system (if one 
exists)?  Thanks again!

- Andy


System Specs
-----------------
Motherboard:  Supermicro X8DTU
Chipset:  Intel 5520 (Tylersburg)
Processors:  Dual Intel Xeon E5540 @2.53GHz
RAM:  32GB PC3-8500 1066MHz
OS:  CentOS 5.3
Kernel:  2.6.18-128.el5
RAID Controller:  3ware 9650SE-12M
Disk Type:  SATA
Disk Size:  1.82 TB
RAID Level:  6
# of disks:  11
Stripe Size:  256 KB
File System Size:  16.37 TB
XFS Info:  kmod-xfs-0.4-2, xfsprogs-2.9.4-1.el5.centos



> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> Message: 1
> Date: Sat, 23 Oct 2010 22:38:25 -0500
> From: Stan Hoeppner <stan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: Re: XFS Test Results Interpretation
> To: xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
> Message-ID: <4CC3AA31.2000101@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

> Andrew Debenham put forth on 10/23/2010 9:59 PM:
> > I am in the process of trying to determine the best parameters to use when 
> > creating and mounting an XFS file system on some new hardware we are going 
> > to be using.  My company has two separate applications that will
> > be running on the same hardware (but on separate systems).  One application 
> > is the PostgreSQL database and the other is a custom application that does 
> > writes to many (~1,000) relatively small (~672MB) files
>> concurrently.

> Post the detailed hardware specs (server, local RAID or SAN, number of disks 
> in stripe set, RAID level, etc), and if both applications are running on the 
> same physical machine or different machines.  Are both apps writing to > the 
> same XFS filesystem or two different filesystems?
> Your description of "what is where" was very confusing.

> Oh, and Bonnie++ test results are usually useless, as well as IOZone, etc.  
> Next time ask before taking the time to run benchmarks and jump through hoops 
> to get the data onto the list. :)

> -- Stan


This email and any attachments may be confidential and are intended solely for 
the use of the individual to whom it is addressed.

If you are not the intended recipient of this email, the following stipulations 
govern the use of this information:  You may not take any action based upon its 
contents.  You may not copy or show this message or attachments to anyone. You 
should contact the sender and subsequently delete this message and all 
attachments.

Any views or opinions expressed are solely those of the author and do not 
necessarily represent those of Special Operations Technology, Incorporated.

While antivirus software has been applied, you should perform due diligence to 
check this email and attachments for the presence of viruses.  No warranties or 
assurances are made in relation to the safety and content of this email and 
attachments.  Special Operations Technology, Incorporated accepts no liability 
for any damages caused by any virus transmitted by or contained in this email 
and attachments.

No liability is accepted for any consequences arising from this email 
transmission whatsoever.

Special Operations Technology, Incorporated is a premier IT professional 
services firm focused in the government and law enforcement space.

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