[Top] [All Lists]

Re: xfs: very slow after mount, very slow at umount

To: Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: xfs: very slow after mount, very slow at umount
From: Mark Lord <kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2011 19:59:51 -0500
Cc: Stan Hoeppner <stan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Alex Elder <aelder@xxxxxxx>, Linux Kernel <linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <20110127234152.GN21311@dastard>
References: <4D40C8D1.8090202@xxxxxxxxxxxx> <20110127033011.GH21311@dastard> <4D40EB2F.2050809@xxxxxxxxxxxx> <4D418B57.1000501@xxxxxxxxxxxx> <20110127234152.GN21311@dastard>
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-GB; rv: Gecko/20101207 Thunderbird/3.1.7
On 11-01-27 06:41 PM, Dave Chinner wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 27, 2011 at 10:12:23AM -0500, Mark Lord wrote:
>> Can you recommend a good set of mkfs.xfs parameters to suit the 
>> characteristics
>> of this system? 
> http://xfs.org/index.php/XFS_FAQ#Q:_I_want_to_tune_my_XFS_filesystems_for_.3Csomething.3E

That entry says little beyond "blindly trust the defaults".
But thanks anyway (really).

> And perhaps you want to consider the allocsize mount option, though
> that shouldn't be necessary for 2.6.38+...

That's a good tip, thanks.
>From my earlier posting:

>   /dev/sdb1 on /var/lib/mythtv type xfs
> (rw,noatime,allocsize=64M,logbufs=8,largeio)

Maybe that allocsize value could be increased though.
Perhaps something on the order of 256MB might do it.

Thanks again!

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