Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by oss.sgi.com (8.11.2/8.11.3) id g2KHBW903434 for linux-xfs-outgoing; Wed, 20 Mar 2002 09:11:32 -0800 Received: from zok.sgi.com (zok.sgi.com [204.94.215.101]) by oss.sgi.com (8.11.2/8.11.3) with SMTP id g2KHBQ903408 for ; Wed, 20 Mar 2002 09:11:26 -0800 Received: from zeus-e8.americas.sgi.com (zeus-e8.americas.sgi.com [128.162.8.103]) by zok.sgi.com (8.12.2/8.12.2/linux-outbound_gateway-1.2) with ESMTP id g2KICoBA015186 for ; Wed, 20 Mar 2002 10:12:50 -0800 Received: from daisy-e185.americas.sgi.com (daisy-e194.americas.sgi.com [128.162.194.214]) by zeus-e8.americas.sgi.com (SGI-SGI-8.9.3/americas-smart-nospam1.1) with ESMTP id LAA52167; Wed, 20 Mar 2002 11:11:33 -0600 (CST) Received: from jen.americas.sgi.com (jen.americas.sgi.com [128.162.187.49]) by daisy-e185.americas.sgi.com (SGI-8.9.3/SGI-server-1.7) with ESMTP id LAA84587; Wed, 20 Mar 2002 11:11:33 -0600 (CST) Received: by jen.americas.sgi.com (8.11.6/SGI-client-1.7) id g2KH9G410706; Wed, 20 Mar 2002 11:09:16 -0600 Subject: Re: Fragmentation (was: XFS NFS server Oops) From: Steve Lord To: Federico Sevilla III Cc: Linux XFS Mailing List In-Reply-To: References: Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Evolution/1.0.2 Date: 20 Mar 2002 11:09:16 -0600 Message-Id: <1016644156.6150.129.camel@jen.americas.sgi.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Sender: owner-linux-xfs@oss.sgi.com Precedence: bulk On Tue, 2002-03-19 at 19:37, Federico Sevilla III wrote: > On 19 Mar 2002 at 16:47, Steve Lord wrote: > > xfs_db -r /dev/xxx (it can be mounted) > > xfs_db: frag -f > > Cool. (Obviously I never really dug into the xfs_db manpage before to find > stuff like this out.) That seemed harmless so I checked out all my > filesystems. > > I got fragmentation factors from a high of 50.92% (this is a filesystem > where I store huge tar.gz backups and not much else) to a low of 0.43% for > my / filesystem. > > So now I wonder (trivial, really, but this might be FAQ-worthy): > > a. At what fragmentation factor should we start considering running > xfs_fsr? Or should we just go with what the xfs_fsr manpage says and run > it in a crontab weekly? > > b. I remember awhile back that xfs_fsr didn't come very highly > recommended. Is this still the case? Or can we use xfs_fsr on production > systems (during their more idle times, of course) and still be able to > sleep at night? > Probably hold off for now on running fsr. Look at the other numbers on the output. The actual and ideal are more interesting. If you look at these, the difference is the number of extra extents you have above the ideal case. Then ask how much data you have on the disk, dividing by the actual extent number gives you the average length of the extents. It is also possible that most of the fragmentation is restricted to a few files. Steve -- Steve Lord voice: +1-651-683-3511 Principal Engineer, Filesystem Software email: lord@sgi.com