| To: | Arkadiusz MiÅkiewicz <arekm@xxxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: md-RAID5/6 stripe_cache_size default value vs performance vs memory footprint |
| From: | Stan Hoeppner <stan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Sat, 21 Dec 2013 19:41:37 -0600 |
| Cc: | linux-raid@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, "xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx" <xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Delivered-to: | xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| In-reply-to: | <52B57912.5080000@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| References: | <52B102FF.8040404@xxxxxxxxxxx> <52B2FE9E.50307@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <52B41B67.9030308@xxxxxxxxxxx> <201312202343.47895.arekm@xxxxxxxx> <52B57912.5080000@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Reply-to: | stan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |
| User-agent: | Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.2.0 |
On 12/21/2013 5:18 AM, Stan Hoeppner wrote: ... > For example, I assisted a user with 5x Intel SSDs back in January and > his system required 4096, or 80MB of RAM for stripe cache, to reach > maximum write throughput of the devices. This yielded 600MB/s or 60% > greater throughput than 2048, or 40MB RAM for cache. In his case 60MB > more RAM than the default was well worth the increase as the machine was > an iSCSI target server with 8GB RAM. Correction here. I said above that 80MB was 60MB greater than the default for his 5 drives. This should have said 75MB greater than the default which is 1MB per member device, or 5MB for 5 drives. -- Stan |
| Previous by Date: | Re: Questions about XFS discard and xfs_free_extent() code (newbie), Chris Murphy |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: XFS blocked task in xlog_cil_force_lsn, Kevin Richter |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: md-RAID5/6 stripe_cache_size default value vs performance vs memory footprint, Piergiorgio Sartor |
| Next by Thread: | Re: md-RAID5/6 stripe_cache_size default value vs performance vs memory footprint, Christoph Hellwig |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |