[Top] [All Lists]

Re: External log size limitations

To: xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: External log size limitations
From: Stan Hoeppner <stan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sat, 19 Feb 2011 14:33:58 -0600
In-reply-to: <20110219100207.GA24537@xxxxxxx>
References: <4D5C1D77.1060000@xxxxxxxxxxx> <20110217003233.GH13052@dastard> <4D5E8FAD.9080802@xxxxxxxxxxx> <4D5ECEC5.2020701@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <4D5ED70B.7030504@xxxxxxxxxxx> <4D5F3EBF.3030309@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20110219100207.GA24537@xxxxxxx>
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv: Gecko/20101207 Thunderbird/3.1.7
Matthias Schniedermeyer put forth on 2/19/2011 4:02 AM:
> On 18.02.2011 21:53, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
>> Fist, sorry for the length.  I can tend to get windy talking shop. :)
>> Andrew Klaassen put forth on 2/18/2011 2:31 PM:
>>> It's IBM and LSI gear, so I'm crossing my fingers that a Linux install
>>> will be relatively painless.
>> Ahh, good.  At least, so far it seems so. ;)
>>> I thought that the filesystem block size was still limited to the kernel
>>> page size, which is 4K on x86 systems.
>>> http://oss.sgi.com/projects/xfs/
>>> "The maximum filesystem block size is the page size of the kernel, which
>>> is 4K on x86 architecture."
>>> Is this no longer true?  It would be awesome news if it wasn't.
>> My mistake.  It would appear you are limited to the page size, which, as
>> I mentioned, is still 8 KiB for most distros.
> You confuse that with STACK-size.

Yes, I did.  However...

> The page-size is, and has always been, 4 KiB (on X86).

To bring this back around to the OP's original question, do you agree or
disagree with my assertion that a 64 KiB XFS block size will yield
little if any advantage over a 4 KiB block size, and may in fact have
some disadvantages, specifically with small file random IO?


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