From: Andrew Debenham <adebenham@sotech1.com>
To: "xfs@oss.sgi.com" <xfs@oss.sgi.com>
Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2010 07:17:24 -0400
Subject: Re: XFS Test Results Interpretation 
Thread-Topic: XFS Test Results Interpretation 
Thread-Index: Act0Lzgi2xnZiG0DTLyIU1xaIvo0tg==
Message-ID: <3C5E029826A0704DB5998577FCFF46F0095A278CEB@dagobah>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0

Stan -

Thank you for your response and I apologize if my initial explanation wasn'=
t clear.  The applications will be running on identical hardware (see specs=
. below) but each application will be running on a dedicated system.  My or=
iginal spreadsheet had this information but it obviously didn't come throug=
h correctly.  I would like to tune the XFS file systems to accommodate the =
two different applications.  As I mentioned before, I experimented with var=
ious parameters (e.g. sunit, swidth, log size, etc.) and different mounting=
 options (e.g. logbufs, logbsize, etc.), but it sounds like I may have been=
 wasting my time attempting to benchmark the file systems.  Any information=
 or recommendations you can provide would be greatly appreciated.  Also, ca=
n you recommend a tool that would be good for benchmarking an XFS file syst=
em (if one exists)?  Thanks again!

- Andy


System Specs
-----------------
Motherboard:  Supermicro X8DTU
Chipset:  Intel 5520 (Tylersburg)
Processors:  Dual Intel Xeon E5540 @2.53GHz
RAM:  32GB PC3-8500 1066MHz
OS:  CentOS 5.3
Kernel:  2.6.18-128.el5
RAID Controller:  3ware 9650SE-12M
Disk Type:  SATA
Disk Size:  1.82 TB
RAID Level:  6
# of disks:  11
Stripe Size:  256 KB
File System Size:  16.37 TB
XFS Info:  kmod-xfs-0.4-2, xfsprogs-2.9.4-1.el5.centos


> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> Message: 1
> Date: Sat, 23 Oct 2010 22:38:25 -0500
> From: Stan Hoeppner <stan@hardwarefreak.com>
> Subject: Re: XFS Test Results Interpretation
> To: xfs@oss.sgi.com
> Message-ID: <4CC3AA31.2000101@hardwarefreak.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=3DISO-8859-1

> Andrew Debenham put forth on 10/23/2010 9:59 PM:
> > I am in the process of trying to determine the best parameters to use w=
hen creating and mounting an XFS file system on some new hardware we are go=
ing to be using.  My company has two separate applications that will
> > be running on the same hardware (but on separate systems).  One applica=
tion is the PostgreSQL database and the other is a custom application that =
does writes to many (~1,000) relatively small (~672MB) files
>> concurrently.

> Post the detailed hardware specs (server, local RAID or SAN, number of di=
sks in stripe set, RAID level, etc), and if both applications are running o=
n the same physical machine or different machines.  Are both apps writing t=
o > the same XFS filesystem or two different filesystems?
> Your description of "what is where" was very confusing.

> Oh, and Bonnie++ test results are usually useless, as well as IOZone, etc=
.  Next time ask before taking the time to run benchmarks and jump through =
hoops to get the data onto the list. :)

> -- Stan


This email and any attachments may be confidential and are intended solely =
for the use of the individual to whom it is addressed.

If you are not the intended recipient of this email, the following stipulat=
ions govern the use of this information:  You may not take any action based=
 upon its contents.  You may not copy or show this message or attachments t=
o anyone. You should contact the sender and subsequently delete this messag=
e and all attachments.

Any views or opinions expressed are solely those of the author and do not n=
ecessarily represent those of Special Operations Technology, Incorporated.

While antivirus software has been applied, you should perform due diligence=
 to check this email and attachments for the presence of viruses.  No warra=
nties or assurances are made in relation to the safety and content of this =
email and attachments.  Special Operations Technology, Incorporated accepts=
 no liability for any damages caused by any virus transmitted by or contain=
ed in this email and attachments.

No liability is accepted for any consequences arising from this email trans=
mission whatsoever.

Special Operations Technology, Incorporated is a premier IT professional se=
rvices firm focused in the government and law enforcement space.