On Thu, Mar 31, 2005 at 01:00:38PM -0800, David Kewley wrote:
>I wonder what they'd say to raw performance numbers. Maybe something like
The most disturbing thing about bonnie++ numbers isn't XFS related -
the 'rewrite' speed in 2.6 is dreadful - it's about 6x less than a 2.4
I think it's a NFS client problem as a 2.4 client talking to a 2.6
server sees ok numbers again. it seems to be filesystem independent.
>"Those differences don't matter in real life." or "Sequential I/O isn't
>representative of real use." :) Whatever the case, the more of their
you'd think RHEL AS4 as an NFS server would be a very common
configuration and that RedHat would want it to go faster... :-/
XFS does well at the large single files workload eg. film industry or
computational cluster. When testing I didn't pay much attention to
benchmarks of small files etc., but maybe it's not so good at that.
Still, choice is a good thing, and for a proportion of RedHat customers
it'd be a significant win.
>customers make the case to them for supporting xfs, and the more that provide
>good hard reasons why, the more likely they are to consider investing in
>in-house xfs expertise.
>to me. I took a gander at your website, and it sounds like we're in similar
>situations. I'm a sysadmin for a computational geophysics beowulf. The
computational astrophysics here.
>fileserver I'm asking about is a 9.6TB raw (24x400) 3-ware 9500 based box. :)
yup, pretty much the same here except we haven't got the box fully loaded
with disks yet. seems like a nice toy :)