| To: | Stan Hoeppner <stan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: md-RAID5/6 stripe_cache_size default value vs performance vs memory footprint |
| From: | Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Thu, 26 Dec 2013 00:55:10 -0800 |
| Cc: | Arkadiusz Mi??kiewicz <arekm@xxxxxxxx>, linux-raid@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, "xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx" <xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Delivered-to: | xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| In-reply-to: | <52B57912.5080000@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| References: | <52B102FF.8040404@xxxxxxxxxxx> <52B2FE9E.50307@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <52B41B67.9030308@xxxxxxxxxxx> <201312202343.47895.arekm@xxxxxxxx> <52B57912.5080000@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| User-agent: | Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) |
On Sat, Dec 21, 2013 at 05:18:42AM -0600, Stan Hoeppner wrote: > The powers that be, Linus in particular, are not fond of default > settings that create a lot of kernel memory structures. The default > md-RAID5/6 stripe_cache-size yields 1MB consumed per member device. The default sizing is stupid as it basically makes RAID unusable out of the box, I always have to fix that up, as well as a somewhat reasonable chunk size for parity RAID to make it usable. I'm also pretty sure I complained about it at least once a while ago, but never got a reply. |
| Previous by Date: | Re: [PATCH v2 0/3] xfs: add O_TMPFILE support, Christoph Hellwig |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: [RFC] Userspace and xfstests releases, Christoph Hellwig |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: md-RAID5/6 stripe_cache_size default value vs performance vs memory footprint, Stan Hoeppner |
| Next by Thread: | Re: md-RAID5/6 stripe_cache_size default value vs performance vs memory footprint, Stan Hoeppner |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |