xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Small files perform much faster on newly formatted fs?

To: Norbert Veber <nveber@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: Small files perform much faster on newly formatted fs?
From: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 08 Jun 2011 16:16:32 -0500
Cc: Michael Monnerie <michael.monnerie@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <4DEFE10E.1070509@xxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <20110607163742.GH28625@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <201106080911.11286@xxxxxx> <20110608122638.GQ28625@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <4DEFE10E.1070509@xxxxxxxxxxx>
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; en-US; rv:1.9.2.17) Gecko/20110414 Thunderbird/3.1.10
On 6/8/11 3:52 PM, Eric Sandeen wrote:
> On 6/8/11 7:26 AM, Norbert Veber wrote:
>> On Wed, Jun 08, 2011 at 09:11:10AM +0200, Michael Monnerie wrote:
>>> On Dienstag, 7. Juni 2011 Norbert Veber wrote:
>>>> 20 seconds vs 3+ minutes?!  The only difference I can see is
>>>> lazy-count=1 and a larger agcount.  Sunit and swidth were also set
>>>> automatically by mkfs this time.
>>>
>>> Then retry mounting the old fs with sunit= and swidth= parameters. Are 
>>> they on the same disks? What are your disks (number, kind)?
>>
>> Yes its already mounted this way as I mentioned in my original message:
>> /dev/mapper/vg0-shared on /shared type xfs (rw,noatime,sunit=128,swidth=256)
>>
>> Both filesystems are on the same MD raid 5 which consists of 3 1 tb WD
>> Black hard drive.
> 
> The 2 filesystems are at different locations on the disks, so that will make
> some difference.
> 
> It's probably also possible that your old log is not stripe-aligned.

.... or that one or the other partition on your raid5 is not aligned?

-Eric

> Not sure what else it might be ...  You did get the units right on your
> stripe specification at mount-time, good job! ;)
> 
> -Eric

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