| To: | lord@xxxxxxx |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: U320 Large Array Performance |
| From: | "Rick Smith" <rgsmith72@xxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Wed, 05 Feb 2003 12:48:06 -0800 |
| Cc: | linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| Sender: | linux-xfs-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx |
|
Steve, As a test, I shortened the size of one of the 15 disks in the array (using fdisk) in order to create a slightly smaller filesystem and thus requiring a smaller number of allocation groups. The resultant filesystem only required 256 allocation groups and I was able to improve performance over 14 disks for the first time. The results from xfs_bmap for this 15 disk array was very similar to the output that I sent you for the 14 disk array. There were no extent gaps between files written in succession and each group of files seem to have the same AG. I feel the problem is the result of >256 allocation groups. Any thoughts on this? Rick From: Steve Lord <lord@xxxxxxx> To: Rick Smith <rgsmith72@xxxxxxxxxxx> CC: linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx Subject: Re: U320 Large Array Performance Date: 05 Feb 2003 12:02:08 -0600 _________________________________________________________________ The new MSN 8: smart spam protection and 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: U320 Large Array Performance, Rick Smith |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Red Hat Linux errata kernel 2.4.18-24, Seth Mos |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: U320 Large Array Performance, Rick Smith |
| Next by Thread: | Re: U320 Large Array Performance, Rick Smith |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |