xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

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

To: xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: Anyone using XFS in production on > 20TiB volumes?
From: Stan Hoeppner <stan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 23 Dec 2010 19:01:18 -0600
In-reply-to: <alpine.DEB.2.00.1012231427430.6569@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> <20101223195544.53d45f0b@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <alpine.DEB.2.00.1012231427430.6569@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.9.2.13) Gecko/20101207 Thunderbird/3.1.7
Justin Piszcz put forth on 12/23/2010 1:29 PM:

> Please check the updated page:
> http://home.comcast.net/~jpiszcz/20101223/final.html
> 
> Using a partition shows a slight degredation in the re-write speed but
> an increase in performance for sequential output and input with the mode
> set to perform.  Looks like this is what I will be using as it is the
> fastest
> speeds overall except for the rewrite.

If your primary workloads for this array are mostly single user/thread
streaming writes/reads then this may be fine.  If they are multi-user or
multi-threaded random re-write server loads, re-write is the most
important metric and you should optimize for that scenario alone, as its
performance is most dramatically impacted by parity RAID schemes such as
RAID 6.

-- 
Stan


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