[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Anyone using XFS in production on > 20TiB volumes?

To: Emmanuel Florac <eflorac@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: Anyone using XFS in production on > 20TiB volumes?
From: Justin Piszcz <jpiszcz@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 23 Dec 2010 14:07:13 -0500 (EST)
Cc: xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <20101223195544.53d45f0b@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <alpine.DEB.2.00.1012221128440.5245@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20101222175611.1c7d5190@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <4D124B71.9030401@xxxxxxxxxxx> <20101223012655.2681c596@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <alpine.DEB.2.00.1012221928050.7452@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20101223005630.GJ4907@dastard> <alpine.DEB.2.00.1012230442150.7452@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <alpine.DEB.2.00.1012231304130.12482@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20101223195544.53d45f0b@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
User-agent: Alpine 2.00 (DEB 1167 2008-08-23)

On Thu, 23 Dec 2010, Emmanuel Florac wrote:

Le Thu, 23 Dec 2010 13:06:10 -0500 (EST) vous écriviez:


Something's wrong with the file create/stat/delete tests. Did you mount
with "nobarrier"?
No, default mount options..
Also I just changed it will update the page in a bit, the raid was on
balance mode, with performance, the raid-rewrite went to ~420-430MiB/s, much

Which drives, controller firmware, raid level, stripe width?
Hitachi 7K3000 7200RPM 3TB Drives
Latest firmware, 10.2 I think for the 9750-24ie
Raid Level = 6
Stripe width = 256k (default)

BTW don't run only one test, it's meaningless. I always run at least 8
cycles (and up to 30 or 40 cycles) and then calculate the average and
standard deviation, because one test among a cycle may vary wildly for
some reason. You don't need the "char" tests, that doesn't correspond
to any real-life usage pattern. Better run bonnie with the -f option,
and -x with some large enough value.

I ran 3 tests and took the average of the 3 runs per each unit test. I use this test because I have been using it for 3-4+ years so I can compare apples to apples.

If its +++ or blank in the HTML that means it ran too fast for it to measure
I believe.

Main wonder I have is why when the partition is aligned to 1MiB, which is
the default in parted 2.2+ I believe, is it slower than with no partitions?

I will try again with mode=performance on the RAID controller..

Emmanuel Florac     |   Direction technique
                   |   Intellique
                   |    <eflorac@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
                   |   +33 1 78 94 84 02
<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>