Hi,
My 5 cents...
On Thursday 03 March 2005 16:06, Chris Penney wrote:
> The hardware is a dual cpu P4, 2GB RAM, gigabit ehternet, and dual
My experience shows, that running a high-load NFS server on 2.6.x/SMP will
give you a lot of crashes which appears to originate from races in VFS - This
doesen't seem to be an XFS problem thoug. Haven't seen any problems on UP (Do
you need all that CPU power?). - Last time i ran my systems on SMP was with
2.6.6 as I have several stable XFS/NFS servers on 2.6.[6,9,11]-UP, I dont
know if this has changed since then tho... Anyone?
> I want to use XFS unless there is a good reason not to.
Nothing comes to mind, but I can find a lot of reasons _for_ choosing XFS.
> for optimal mkfs.xfs options as well as mount options. In particular
> any settings I may need to make with regard to having four luns and a
> 512k stripe size.
My tests showed very little performance difference regarding mkfs.xfs options
(sunit, swidth et al.) on similar disk systems. I would go for the defaults.
One thing which will most likely boost performance is an external log on a
different disksystem when you expect high level of writes.
And last be sure to use 2.6.11 as kswapd is fixed and you have the possibility
to set custom hashtable size on your XFS filesystems.
--
Med venlig hilsen - Best regards - Meilleures salutations
Anders Saaby
Systems Engineer
------------------------------------------------
Cohaesio A/S - Maglebjergvej 5D - DK-2800 Lyngby
Phone: +45 45 880 888 - Fax: +45 45 880 777
Mail: as@xxxxxxxxxxxx - http://www.cohaesio.com
------------------------------------------------
|