xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: xfs performance problem

To: Michael Weissenbacher <mw@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: xfs performance problem
From: Benjamin Schindler <bschindler@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2011 10:09:52 +0200
Cc: <xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx>
In-reply-to: <4DB7CC01.8090804@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <4DB72084.8020205@xxxxxxxxxxx> <4DB74331.3030804@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <4DB7CC01.8090804@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.2.15) Gecko/20110330 Lightning/1.0b3pre Thunderbird/3.1.9
Hi


On 04/27/2011 09:55 AM, Michael Weissenbacher wrote:
> schrieb Stan Hoeppner:
>> Benjamin Schindler put forth on 4/26/2011 2:44 PM:
>>> Hi
>> Also, slap yourself in the forehead at least 3 times for running your
>> root filesystem on RAID 0.  That's akin to riding a motorcycle, naked,
>> in a blizzard, down a steep, winding, ice covered mountain road with no
>> guard rails and a 3000 ft drop. ;)
>>
> If you are really adventurous and don't care about the data on your root
> fs use the following mount options:
> logbsize=256k,delaylog,nobarrier
> 
> Personally i would only enable "nobarrier" on Server-Class hardware with
> Battery Backup and proper UPS. But since you are using RAID-0 i suppose
> you really don't care that much about the data on your root fs.

Or stop using raid-0 all together. The performance gain is more than
offset by the barriers and it seems using xfs on just a single disk
would improve performance a lot more than using raid-0 (with disk
failure risk) + risk of corruption due to disabled barriers... or am I
missing something?

> 
> Note that both logbsize and delaylog will only have effect on your root
> fs if added to grub.conf (real_rootflags=) since remounting won't
> activate them. Use "cat /proc/mounts" to see if these options were
> really enabled.
> 
> hth,
> Michael
> 
> _______________________________________________
> xfs mailing list
> xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
> http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs

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