xfs
[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 17:04:58 -0500 (EST)
Cc: xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <20101223225036.4bef756e@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> <alpine.DEB.2.00.1012231403440.5924@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20101223225036.4bef756e@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
User-agent: Alpine 2.00 (DEB 1167 2008-08-23)
Hi,

I had not tested with 64KB or 16KB stripes:

I used optimal (default I believe) in newer 2.2+ parted:

       -a alignment-type, --align alignment-type
              Set  alignment  for  newly  created  partitions, valid alignment
              types are:

              none   Use the minimum alignment allowed by the disk type.

              cylinder
                     Align partitions to cylinders.

              minimal
                     Use minimum alignment  as  given  by  the  disk  topology
                     information.  This  and  the  opt  value  will use layout
                     information provided by the disk  to  align  the  logical
                     partition  table  addresses  to actual physical blocks on
                     the disks.  The min value is the minimum aligment  needed
                     to align the partition properly to physical blocks, which
                     avoids performance degradation.

              optimal
                     Use optimum alignment  as  given  by  the  disk  topology
                     information.  This  aligns  to a multiple of the physical
                     block size in a way that guarantees optimal performance.

I'm happy with the performance now.. I get 16GB ram tomorrow so hopefully that'll be enough if I need to xfs_repair.

Justin.


On Thu, 23 Dec 2010, Emmanuel Florac wrote:

Le Thu, 23 Dec 2010 14:07:13 -0500 (EST) vous écriviez:

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?

1MiB possibly can't round well on the stripe boundaries. I suppose you
could get better results with 64KB or 16KB stripes. Did you try with an
LVM in between?

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