| To: | xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: Anyone using XFS in production on > 20TiB volumes? |
| From: | Stan Hoeppner <stan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Thu, 23 Dec 2010 19:01:18 -0600 |
| In-reply-to: | <alpine.DEB.2.00.1012231427430.6569@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| References: | <alpine.DEB.2.00.1012221128440.5245@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20101222175611.1c7d5190@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <4D124B71.9030401@xxxxxxxxxxx> <20101223012655.2681c596@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <alpine.DEB.2.00.1012221928050.7452@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20101223005630.GJ4907@dastard> <alpine.DEB.2.00.1012230442150.7452@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <alpine.DEB.2.00.1012231304130.12482@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20101223195544.53d45f0b@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <alpine.DEB.2.00.1012231427430.6569@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| User-agent: | Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.9.2.13) Gecko/20101207 Thunderbird/3.1.7 |
Justin Piszcz put forth on 12/23/2010 1:29 PM: > Please check the updated page: > http://home.comcast.net/~jpiszcz/20101223/final.html > > Using a partition shows a slight degredation in the re-write speed but > an increase in performance for sequential output and input with the mode > set to perform. Looks like this is what I will be using as it is the > fastest > speeds overall except for the rewrite. If your primary workloads for this array are mostly single user/thread streaming writes/reads then this may be fine. If they are multi-user or multi-threaded random re-write server loads, re-write is the most important metric and you should optimize for that scenario alone, as its performance is most dramatically impacted by parity RAID schemes such as RAID 6. -- Stan |
| Previous by Date: | Re: xfssyncd and disk spin down, Stan Hoeppner |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: xfssyncd and disk spin down, Stan Hoeppner |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: Anyone using XFS in production on > 20TiB volumes?, Stan Hoeppner |
| Next by Thread: | Re: Anyone using XFS in production on > 20TiB volumes?, Eric Sandeen |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |