xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

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

To: Justin Piszcz <jpiszcz@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: Anyone using XFS in production on > 20TiB volumes?
From: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 23 Dec 2010 15:12:55 -0600
Cc: Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <alpine.DEB.2.00.1012231304130.12482@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
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>
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; en-US; rv:1.9.2.13) Gecko/20101207 Thunderbird/3.1.7
On 12/23/10 12:06 PM, Justin Piszcz wrote:
> 
> On Thu, 23 Dec 2010, Justin Piszcz wrote:
> 
> 
> Hi,
> 
> How come parted using (optimal at 1mb alignment is slower than no
> partition?  

because parted got it wrong, sounds like.

> In addition, sunit and swidth set properly as mentioned
> earlier appears to be _slower_ than defaults with no partitions.

stripe unit over an incorrectly aligned partition won't help
and I suppose could make it worse.

align your partitions, using sector units, to a stripe width unit.
Set the stripe width properly on the fs on top of that.

-Eric
 
> 
> http://home.comcast.net/~jpiszcz/20101223/final.html
> 
> Justin.
> 

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