| To: | Deanan <delusion@xxxxxxxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: inode64 workaround |
| From: | David Chatterton <chatz@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Thu, 30 Nov 2006 11:47:44 +1100 |
| Cc: | xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| In-reply-to: | <456E1B08.7090802@delusion.com> |
| Organization: | SGI |
| References: | <200611290027.AA04740@TNESG9305.tnes.nec.co.jp> <1164838985.4992.30.camel@edge> <456E1B08.7090802@delusion.com> |
| Reply-to: | chatz@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |
| Sender: | xfs-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| User-agent: | Thunderbird 1.5.0.8 (Windows/20061025) |
Deanan,
Would something like the inode rotor help?
fs.xfs.rotorstep (Min: 1 Default: 1 Max: 256)
In "inode32" allocation mode, this option determines how many
files the allocator attempts to allocate in the same allocation
group before moving to the next allocation group. The intent
is to control the rate at which the allocator moves between
allocation groups when allocating extents for new files.
David
Deanan wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I've got some systems that I can't change the kernel on (external
> vendor) that
> are 32bit but I'm running into the performance problem that is fixed by
> using
> inode64. Is there any known way of working around the problem on a 32bit
> kernel?
>
> In our case, the problem occurs as soon as you start to delete files and
> write new ones.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Deanan
>
--
David Chatterton
XFS Engineering Manager
SGI Australia
|
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: [PATCH] remove v_number, David Chinner |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: inode64 workaround, Deanan |
| Previous by Thread: | inode64 workaround, Deanan |
| Next by Thread: | Re: inode64 workaround, Deanan |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |