xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: A little RAID experiment

To: stan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: A little RAID experiment
From: Stefan Ring <stefanrin@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2012 09:22:34 +0200
Cc: xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=Tjw9wtlqA95lXucpttxFXFCq25Ii0yl8vU4Y1zO+ylg=; b=taLdJYJ+LAWNGsof2EAYIZCY/JHiFLkG8ZsvpuVStlTSfOzWo+879m+mKWosi5HfKi z53Owp3b3ZFYhuDR2XycE8NJ8hLg9Y7+dSH940dhg9PzW421vL22cswI7rJGPSkMXcoB dPPCk0P9ayFO5m0VuCXQR1tTN/YmCOP/MPcdwbxL0IQ91sHoi55IV5Af8ARJo+BqqNq2 qiY/BdCiV1S/O7uGxjw9jzj5QE/2I9ef2npEPRa+s2uAIeGaqnD2+Vdwcjqi5qdK3pjp KurmkOEMLe3WiuSyfQwAPHFmaRD3cDbSV9E+L7KUE0myu+gU+Yc/Va7NjblWiIcESfyd h1jw==
In-reply-to: <50066115.7070807@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <CAAxjCEzh3+doupD=LmgqSbCeYWzn9Ru-vE4T8tOJmoud+28FDQ@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <CAAxjCEzEiXv5Kna9zxZ-ePbhNg6nfRinkU=PCuyX3QHesq5qcg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <5004875D.1020305@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <CAAxjCEw-NJzZmX3Q5CJ+aZ_Q7Yo39pMU=-hiXk0ghTMq7q3PWA@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <5004C243.6040404@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20120717052621.GB23387@dastard> <50061CEA.4070609@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <CAAxjCEwgDKLF=RY0aCCNTMsc1oefXWfyHKh+morYB9zVUrnH-A@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <50066115.7070807@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> *Gasp*  EXT3?  Not XFS?  Why are posting this thread on XFS?  The two
> will likely have (significantly) different behavior.

Because it was XFS originally which hammered the controller with this
disadvantageous pattern. Except for the concurrency, it doesn't matter
much on which filesystem sysbench operates. I've previously verified
this on another system.

> Also, to make any meaningful comparison, we kinda need to know which
> controller was targeted by these 3 runs below. ;)

It was the Fibre Channel controller, the one with the collapsing
throughput. (P2000 G3 MSA, QLogic Corp. ISP2532-based 8Gb Fibre
Channel to PCI Express HBA)

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