xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: about the xfs performance

To: xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: about the xfs performance
From: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2016 14:33:10 -0500
Delivered-to: xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <20160411181001.2760439b@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <CAG=-QKovDGUdLXv9AekeK1o4Dd_bwWNfTTTEcq3VoszBgbmXeQ@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20160411181001.2760439b@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.11; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.7.2

On 4/11/16 11:10 AM, Emmanuel Florac wrote:
> Le Mon, 11 Apr 2016 22:14:06 +0800
> Songbo Wang <hack.coo@xxxxxxxxx> Ãcrivait:
> 
>>      mkfs: mkfs.xfs /dev/hioa2 -f -n size=64k -i size=512 -d
>> agcount=40 -l size=1024m.
>>      mount: mount /dev/hioa2 /mnt/  -t xfs -o
>> rw,noexec,nodev,noatime,nodiratime,nobarrier,discard,inode64,logbsize=256k,delaylog
>> I use the following command to test iops: fio -ioengine=libaio -bs=4k
>> -direct=1 -thread -rw=randwrite -size=50G -filename=/mnt/test
>> -name="EBS 4KB randwrite test" -iodepth=64 -runtime=60
>> The results is normal at the beginning which is about 210kÂïbut some
>> seconds later, the results down to 19kÂ.
> 
> You should first try default mkfs settings, with default mount options.

Agreed.  Where did that set of options come from, in any case?

-Eric

> Normally mkfs.xfs should initiate a TRIM on the SSD, therefore
> performance should remain predictable.
> 
> What model of SSD card are you using? With an HGST NVMe SN1x0 I've got
> very consistent results (no degradation with time).
> 

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