|Subject:||Re: Verify filesystem is aligned to stripes|
|Date:||Fri, 26 Nov 2010 14:15:35 +0100|
|References:||<4CED5BFC.8000906@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20101125054607.GM13830@dastard> <4CEE0995.9030900@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20101125101537.GD12187@dastard> <4CEEE9BC.2030401@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20101126091622.264830fa@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20101126122218.GH12187@dastard>|
|User-agent:||Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:18.104.22.168) Gecko/20100713 Thunderbird/3.0.6|
On 11/26/2010 01:22 PM, Dave Chinner wrote:
FWIW, for workloads that do random, small IO, XFS works best when you _turn off_ aligned allocation and just let it spray the IO at the disks. This works best if you are using RAID 0/1/10. All the numbers I've been posting are with aligned allocation turned off (i.e. no sunit/swidth set).
I think I also noticed this...The thing is, for large sequential I/O it seems to me it's indifferent if XFS is aligned or not, because the resulting file will anyway be sequential, and if you have raid10 or even parity raid with a large stripe cache there won't be any reads anyway. Ok maybe with alignment you could avoid reads on the first stripe (not sure, it might read anyway if the RAID reacts fast, before enough output is sent to it), but that's the only one.
So when is alignment to be turned on? Thanks for the info
|<Prev in Thread]||Current Thread||[Next in Thread>|
|Previous by Date:||[bug] deadlock in forced shutdown, Dave Chinner|
|Next by Date:||Re: Verify filesystem is aligned to stripes, Michael Monnerie|
|Previous by Thread:||Re: Verify filesystem is aligned to stripes, Dave Chinner|
|Next by Thread:||Re: Verify filesystem is aligned to stripes, Michael Monnerie|
|Indexes:||[Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists]|