xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: about the xfs performance

To: Songbo Wang <hack.coo@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: about the xfs performance
From: Emmanuel Florac <eflorac@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2016 18:10:01 +0200
Cc: xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
Delivered-to: xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <CAG=-QKovDGUdLXv9AekeK1o4Dd_bwWNfTTTEcq3VoszBgbmXeQ@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Organization: Intellique
References: <CAG=-QKovDGUdLXv9AekeK1o4Dd_bwWNfTTTEcq3VoszBgbmXeQ@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
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.
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).

-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Emmanuel Florac     |   Direction technique
                    |   Intellique
                    |   <eflorac@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
                    |   +33 1 78 94 84 02
------------------------------------------------------------------------

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