xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Bad Metadata performances for XFS?

To: Wang Shilong <wshilong@xxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: Bad Metadata performances for XFS?
From: Chris Murphy <lists@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 5 Jul 2016 14:34:49 -0600
Cc: Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx" <xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Delivered-to: xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=colorremedies-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id :subject:to:cc; bh=RYB6J45jtF25GgBiSCiyX3rotB6F8tx47IEDcq+AEg4=; b=Awy81w7BiZYX46bthM5EmbZZqirR14VosYdceYbaKrZnTRR7evnWOgPILzz4ovoxMc MknUL8zX5An9zfUuqkkNfTJQAXokMF0ciLrG37efnTipUUlEC26phHsKLTHXC63MzmDs OHpi0Fa15JNmfBSSfNDaW+/oYthVEnjdNlMa0dkHyaztYu/pzOduIaKJc9nngI8EVUjR h3XH3prRMNiqUBFhePGsX6t+Y/5Fjf7OcFqzBa4GgdqS0Q0QpU5BiPeDW3WysUBw2JK6 Li1Wix9OBPvtUbrycdmSjoYcgdiYlmEQGScNeq8o3OayTpWwjSIDhSPqhaPeO6kjdRIM JibQ==
In-reply-to: <3ED34739A4E85E4F894367D57617CDEF9ED955AB@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <3ED34739A4E85E4F894367D57617CDEF9ED9518B@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20160704225226.GD27480@dastard> <20160705001854.GY12670@dastard> <3ED34739A4E85E4F894367D57617CDEF9ED955AB@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On Mon, Jul 4, 2016 at 7:43 PM, Wang Shilong <wshilong@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>
> I understand that this is single thread Limit, but I guess there are some
> other Limit here, because even single thread creating 50W files speed
> is twice than 200W files.

Watts or Wolframs (tungsten)?

50W!=50000. You could write it as 50k and 200k. It's unlikely to get
confused with 50K and 200K, which are temperatures, because of
context. But W makes no sense.



-- 
Chris Murphy

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