- 1. External log size limitations (score: 1)
- Author: Andrew Klaassen <ak@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2011 13:54:47 -0500
- Hi all, I found some this document: http://techpubs.sgi.com/library/tpl/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?coll=linux&db=bks&fname=/SGI_Admin/LX_XFS_AG/ch02.html ...which says that an XFS external log is limited to
- /archives/xfs/2011-02/msg00139.html (6,874 bytes)
- 2. Re: External log size limitations (score: 1)
- Author: Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2011 11:32:33 +1100
- The limit is just under 2GB now - that document is a couple of years out of date - so if you are running on anything more recent that a ~2.6.27 kernel 2GB logs should work fine. Data write speed or m
- /archives/xfs/2011-02/msg00145.html (9,257 bytes)
- 3. Re: External log size limitations (score: 1)
- Author: Andrew Klaassen <ak@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2011 10:26:37 -0500
- Ah, good to know. Data write speed or metadata write speed? What sort of write patterns? A couple of hundred nodes on a renderfarm doing mostly compositing with some 3D. It's about 80/20 read/write.
- /archives/xfs/2011-02/msg00153.html (12,926 bytes)
- 4. Re: External log size limitations (score: 1)
- Author: Stan Hoeppner <stan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2011 13:55:49 -0600
- Andrew Klaassen put forth on 2/18/2011 9:26 AM: I'm not familiar with Exanet, only that it was an Israeli company that went belly up in late '09 early '10. Was the hardware provided by them? Is it to
- /archives/xfs/2011-02/msg00158.html (13,565 bytes)
- 5. Re: External log size limitations (score: 1)
- Author: Andrew Klaassen <ak@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2011 15:31:07 -0500
- Stan Hoeppner wrote: I'm not familiar with Exanet, only that it was an Israeli company that went belly up in late '09 early '10. Was the hardware provided by them? Is it totally proprietary, or are y
- /archives/xfs/2011-02/msg00160.html (14,649 bytes)
- 6. Re: External log size limitations (score: 1)
- Author: Stan Hoeppner <stan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2011 21:53:35 -0600
- Fist, sorry for the length. I can tend to get windy talking shop. :) Andrew Klaassen put forth on 2/18/2011 2:31 PM: Ahh, good. At least, so far it seems so. ;) My mistake. It would appear you are li
- /archives/xfs/2011-02/msg00179.html (15,413 bytes)
- 7. Re: External log size limitations (score: 1)
- Author: Matthias Schniedermeyer <ms@xxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 19 Feb 2011 11:02:07 +0100
- You confuse that with STACK-size. The page-size is, and has always been, 4 KiB (on X86). The only exception are the Huge-Pages and while i 'grep'ped for Huge-pages i found this nice little paragraph
- /archives/xfs/2011-02/msg00180.html (10,475 bytes)
- 8. Re: External log size limitations (score: 1)
- Author: Stan Hoeppner <stan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 19 Feb 2011 14:33:58 -0600
- Matthias Schniedermeyer put forth on 2/19/2011 4:02 AM: Yes, I did. However... To bring this back around to the OP's original question, do you agree or disagree with my assertion that a 64 KiB XFS bl
- /archives/xfs/2011-02/msg00181.html (10,231 bytes)
- 9. Re: External log size limitations (score: 1)
- Author: Emmanuel Florac <eflorac@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 19 Feb 2011 22:47:05 +0100
- Le Sat, 19 Feb 2011 14:33:58 -0600 vous écriviez: Undoubtly. The very big block size of Exastore probably is due to its parallel cluster configuration; all parallel clusters filesystems I know of (Lu
- /archives/xfs/2011-02/msg00182.html (9,729 bytes)
- 10. Re: External log size limitations (score: 1)
- Author: Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2011 08:14:10 +1100
- OK, but I don't think that the metadata operations are becoming slow because you are doing write operations - they are likely to be slow due to doing _lots of IO_. That won't change with XFS.... How
- /archives/xfs/2011-02/msg00185.html (13,566 bytes)
This search system is powered by
Namazu