xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: External log size limitations

To: Stan Hoeppner <stan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: External log size limitations
From: Emmanuel Florac <eflorac@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sat, 19 Feb 2011 22:47:05 +0100
Cc: xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <4D602936.10400@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Organization: Intellique
References: <4D5C1D77.1060000@xxxxxxxxxxx> <20110217003233.GH13052@dastard> <4D5E8FAD.9080802@xxxxxxxxxxx> <4D5ECEC5.2020701@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <4D5ED70B.7030504@xxxxxxxxxxx> <4D5F3EBF.3030309@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20110219100207.GA24537@xxxxxxx> <4D602936.10400@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Le Sat, 19 Feb 2011 14:33:58 -0600 vous écriviez:

> 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?

Undoubtly. The very big block size of Exastore probably is due to its
parallel cluster configuration; all parallel clusters filesystems I
know of (Lustre, PVFS2, CEPH, Isilon, etc) use 64K or bigger blocks.

The exastore big block size is a constraint due to its architecture,
not a desirable improvement. In fact, exanet suffered from many
performance problems, because general use parallel clusters are hard. 

-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Emmanuel Florac     |   Direction technique
                    |   Intellique
                    |   <eflorac@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
                    |   +33 1 78 94 84 02
------------------------------------------------------------------------

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