xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: XFS: Abysmal write performance because of excessive seeking (allocat

To: Emmanuel Florac <eflorac@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: XFS: Abysmal write performance because of excessive seeking (allocation groups to blame?)
From: Stan Hoeppner <stan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sun, 08 Apr 2012 15:33:01 -0500
Cc: Stefan Ring <stefanrin@xxxxxxxxx>, Linux fs XFS <xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx>
In-reply-to: <20120407104912.44881be3@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <CAAxjCEwBMbd0x7WQmFELM8JyFu6Kv_b+KDe3XFqJE6shfSAfyQ@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20350.9643.379841.771496@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20350.13616.901974.523140@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <CAAxjCEzkemiYin4KYZX62Ei6QLUFbgZESdwS8krBy0dSqOn6aA@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <4F7F7C25.8040605@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20120407104912.44881be3@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Reply-to: stan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:11.0) Gecko/20120327 Thunderbird/11.0.1
On 4/7/2012 3:49 AM, Emmanuel Florac wrote:
> Le Fri, 06 Apr 2012 18:28:37 -0500 vous écriviez:
> 
>> Creating four 60 drive RAID10 arrays, let alone 60 drive RAID6
>> arrays, would be silly.
> 
> From my experience, with modern arrays don't make much of a difference.
> I've reached decent IOPS (i. e. about 4000 IOPS) on large arrays of up
> to 46 drives provided there are enough threads -- more threads than
> spindles, preferably.

Are you speaking of a mixed metadata/data heavy IOPS workload similar to
that which is the focus of this thread, or another type of workload?  Is
this 46 drive array RAID10 or RAID6?

-- 
Stan

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