xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

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

To: stan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: XFS: Abysmal write performance because of excessive seeking (allocation groups to blame?)
From: Emmanuel Florac <eflorac@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sun, 8 Apr 2012 23:45:55 +0200
Cc: Stefan Ring <stefanrin@xxxxxxxxx>, Linux fs XFS <xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx>
In-reply-to: <4F81F5FD.1090809@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Organization: Intellique
References: <CAAxjCEwBMbd0x7WQmFELM8JyFu6Kv_b+KDe3XFqJE6shfSAfyQ@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20350.9643.379841.771496@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20350.13616.901974.523140@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <CAAxjCEzkemiYin4KYZX62Ei6QLUFbgZESdwS8krBy0dSqOn6aA@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <4F7F7C25.8040605@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20120407104912.44881be3@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <4F81F5FD.1090809@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Le Sun, 08 Apr 2012 15:33:01 -0500 vous écriviez:

> > 
> > 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?

Pure random access, 8K IO benchmark (database simulation). RAID-6
performs about the same in pure reading tests, but stinks terribly at
writing of course.

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

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