Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*mkfs\.xfs\s+questions\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*mkfs\.xfs\s+questions\s*$/: 22 ]

Total 22 documents matching your query.

1. Re: mkfs.xfs questions (score: 1): Author: Iustin Pop <iusty@xxxxxxxxx>; Date: Fri, 1 Dec 2006 19:30:34 +0100; I don't understand how you took that conclusion. The explanations refer to the default log size. I believe the original poster asked about the performance advantage of *raising* the log size above th; /archives/xfs/2006-12/msg00002.html (9,666 bytes)
2. Re: mkfs.xfs questions (score: 1): Author: Christian Kujau <lists@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Fri, 1 Dec 2006 23:59:08 +0000 (GMT); On Fri, 1 Dec 2006, Iustin Pop wrote: I don't understand how you took that conclusion. The explanations refer to the default log size. I believe the original poster asked about the performance advant; /archives/xfs/2006-12/msg00006.html (9,468 bytes)
3. Re: mkfs.xfs questions (score: 1): Author: Iustin Pop <iusty@xxxxxxxxx>; Date: Sat, 2 Dec 2006 12:15:46 +0100; Ah, I see. Sorry for the confusion. Hmm, I am pretty sure that it makes a difference, but only from personal experience, not from benchmarks. A while ago, mkfs.xfs used to make <8M logs even for big; /archives/xfs/2006-12/msg00009.html (10,242 bytes)
4. Re: mkfs.xfs questions (score: 1): Author: Christian Kujau <christian@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Tue, 5 Dec 2006 17:46:15 +0000 (GMT); On Sat, 2 Dec 2006, Iustin Pop wrote: Hmm, I am pretty sure that it makes a difference, but only from personal experience, not from benchmarks. A while ago, mkfs.xfs used to make <8M logs even for bi; /archives/xfs/2006-12/msg00019.html (9,095 bytes)
5. Re: mkfs.xfs questions (score: 1): Author: Iustin Pop <iusty@xxxxxxxxx>; Date: Tue, 5 Dec 2006 19:44:56 +0100; Hmm, I see tests with 32M logs and 64M logs. Try running the file creation/deletion test also with 4M, 8M, 16M, and then I'll think there will be a difference. Iustin; /archives/xfs/2006-12/msg00020.html (9,665 bytes)
6. Re: mkfs.xfs questions (score: 1): Author: David Chinner <dgc@xxxxxxx>; Date: Wed, 6 Dec 2006 08:26:49 +1100; One line summary: "The results however are a bit boring and I for one have no reason to tweak these options for a desktop machine." For that data set size you tested. However you might find a differe; /archives/xfs/2006-12/msg00021.html (9,981 bytes)
7. Re: mkfs.xfs questions (score: 1): Author: Christian Kujau <lists@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Tue, 5 Dec 2006 22:28:18 +0000 (GMT); On Wed, 6 Dec 2006, David Chinner wrote: For that data set size you tested. However you might find a difference if your tests actually write the data back to disk because a lot of the tests are runni; /archives/xfs/2006-12/msg00023.html (10,170 bytes)
8. Re: mkfs.xfs questions (score: 1): Author: Christian Kujau <lists@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Wed, 6 Dec 2006 15:57:55 +0000 (GMT); On Tue, 5 Dec 2006, Christian Kujau wrote: I started a test with 4GB of data (bonnie++ -s 4096m) an hour ago... took 16hrs to complete, wow: http://nerdbynature.de/bench/amd64/2.6.19-git7_xfs.2/ http; /archives/xfs/2006-12/msg00028.html (9,166 bytes)
9. Re: mkfs.xfs questions (score: 1): Author: David Chinner <dgc@xxxxxxx>; Date: Thu, 7 Dec 2006 12:23:38 +1100; You should try version 2 logs and larger log buffer sizes. Also - external log I/O is not cached, so throughput to the log is determined by the hardware. If the external log is slow, it may be worse; /archives/xfs/2006-12/msg00033.html (9,912 bytes)
10. Re: mkfs.xfs questions (score: 1): Author: xx>; Date: Fri, 1 Dec 2006 19:30:34 +0100; /archives/xfs/2006-12/msg00217.html (9,666 bytes)
11. Re: mkfs.xfs questions (score: 1): Author: xx>; Date: Fri, 1 Dec 2006 23:59:08 +0000 (GMT); /archives/xfs/2006-12/msg00221.html (9,468 bytes)
12. Re: mkfs.xfs questions (score: 1): Author: xx>; Date: Sat, 2 Dec 2006 12:15:46 +0100; /archives/xfs/2006-12/msg00224.html (10,242 bytes)
13. Re: mkfs.xfs questions (score: 1): Author: xx>; Date: Tue, 5 Dec 2006 17:46:15 +0000 (GMT); /archives/xfs/2006-12/msg00234.html (9,095 bytes)
14. Re: mkfs.xfs questions (score: 1): Author: xx>; Date: Tue, 5 Dec 2006 19:44:56 +0100; /archives/xfs/2006-12/msg00235.html (9,665 bytes)
15. Re: mkfs.xfs questions (score: 1): Author: xx>; Date: Wed, 6 Dec 2006 08:26:49 +1100; /archives/xfs/2006-12/msg00236.html (9,981 bytes)
16. Re: mkfs.xfs questions (score: 1): Author: xx>; Date: Tue, 5 Dec 2006 22:28:18 +0000 (GMT); /archives/xfs/2006-12/msg00238.html (10,170 bytes)
17. Re: mkfs.xfs questions (score: 1): Author: xx>; Date: Wed, 6 Dec 2006 15:57:55 +0000 (GMT); /archives/xfs/2006-12/msg00243.html (9,166 bytes)
18. Re: mkfs.xfs questions (score: 1): Author: er); Date: Thu, 7 Dec 2006 12:23:38 +1100; /archives/xfs/2006-12/msg00248.html (9,912 bytes)
19. mkfs.xfs questions (score: 1): Author: >; Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2006 17:45:53 +0100; I'm planning to use XFS but have some questions.. Is there any real advantage of making the log size 32-64 MB and what is the difference between log version 1 and 2 regarding to efficency/performanc; /archives/xfs/2006-11/msg00180.html (6,766 bytes)
20. Re: mkfs.xfs questions (score: 1): Author: ); Date: Fri, 1 Dec 2006 04:23:41 +0000 (GMT); On Wed, 29 Nov 2006, Jasmin Buchert wrote: Is there any real advantage of making the log size 32-64 MB and From 'man mkfs.xfs': If the log is contained within the data section and size isn't specifie; /archives/xfs/2006-11/msg00206.html (9,417 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 20
Page: [1] [2]