Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*U320\s+Large\s+Array\s+Performance\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*U320\s+Large\s+Array\s+Performance\s*$/: 27 ]

Total 27 documents matching your query.

1. U320 Large Array Performance (score: 1): Author: "Rick Smith" <rgsmith72@xxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Tue, 04 Feb 2003 14:09:40 -0800; I am constructing a large, high performance U320 raid0 array with XFS using the 2.4.20-rc1-xfs kernel and linux software raid. I am pleased with the performance, but it seems that when I exceed 14 di; /archives/xfs/2003-02/msg00030.html (8,815 bytes)
2. Re: U320 Large Array Performance (score: 1): Author: Steve Lord <lord@xxxxxxx>; Date: 04 Feb 2003 16:16:05 -0600; Sounds like you need to play with mkfs options on XFS. Can you send the output of xfs_info /mnt where /mnt is the mounted filesystem. Steve -- Steve Lord voice: +1-651-683-3511 Principal Engineer, Fi; /archives/xfs/2003-02/msg00031.html (9,634 bytes)
3. Re: U320 Large Array Performance (score: 1): Author: "Rick Smith" <rgsmith72@xxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Tue, 04 Feb 2003 14:47:34 -0800; Here is the output from xfs_info, please excuse the formatting. I am using a chunk size of 4K in the raid. Larger sizes seem to degrade performance. Thanks for your help. With 14 disks in the array:; /archives/xfs/2003-02/msg00032.html (11,170 bytes)
4. Re: U320 Large Array Performance (score: 1): Author: Steve Lord <lord@xxxxxxx>; Date: 04 Feb 2003 17:45:18 -0600; I was going to have a chat with someone about this, but they are gone for the day, so stripe suggestions will have to wait a while. Do you have any way of measuring the I/O going on to each drive? Th; /archives/xfs/2003-02/msg00033.html (13,681 bytes)
5. Re: U320 Large Array Performance (score: 1): Author: Steve Lord <lord@xxxxxxx>; Date: 05 Feb 2003 12:02:08 -0600; Can you do one more thing for me, with these configurations send me the xfs_bmap -v output for a file on each filesystem. Thanks, Steve -- Steve Lord voice: +1-651-683-3511 Principal Engineer, Filesy; /archives/xfs/2003-02/msg00048.html (8,384 bytes)
6. Re: U320 Large Array Performance (score: 1): Author: "Rick Smith" <rgsmith72@xxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Wed, 05 Feb 2003 12:33:40 -0800; After examining the output of the xfs_bmap that I sent you it looks like each file has a different allocation group for the 15 disk case. With 14 disks (73GB each) there are 240 allocation groups wh; /archives/xfs/2003-02/msg00051.html (9,084 bytes)
7. Re: U320 Large Array Performance (score: 1): Author: "Rick Smith" <rgsmith72@xxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Wed, 05 Feb 2003 11:53:23 -0800; Here is the data you requested. By the way, I experimented with agsize as you suggested and it didn't have any affect. In fact (as you probably know), the tool mkfs.xfs produces a warning when agsiz; /archives/xfs/2003-02/msg00052.html (10,502 bytes)
8. Re: U320 Large Array Performance (score: 1): Author: "Rick Smith" <rgsmith72@xxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Wed, 05 Feb 2003 12:48:06 -0800; 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 resul; /archives/xfs/2003-02/msg00053.html (9,344 bytes)
9. Re: U320 Large Array Performance (score: 1): Author: "Rick Smith" <rgsmith72@xxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Wed, 05 Feb 2003 11:53:23 -0800; Here is the data you requested. By the way, I experimented with agsize as you suggested and it didn't have any affect. In fact (as you probably know), the tool mkfs.xfs produces a warning when agsiz; /archives/xfs/2003-02/msg00056.html (10,524 bytes)
10. U320 Large Array Performance (score: 1): Author: "Rick Smith" <rgsmith72@xxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Tue, 04 Feb 2003 14:09:40 -0800; I am constructing a large, high performance U320 raid0 array with XFS using the 2.4.20-rc1-xfs kernel and linux software raid. I am pleased with the performance, but it seems that when I exceed 14 di; /archives/xfs/2003-02/msg00514.html (8,815 bytes)
11. Re: U320 Large Array Performance (score: 1): Author: Steve Lord <lord@xxxxxxx>; Date: 04 Feb 2003 16:16:05 -0600; Sounds like you need to play with mkfs options on XFS. Can you send the output of xfs_info /mnt where /mnt is the mounted filesystem. Steve -- Steve Lord voice: +1-651-683-3511 Principal Engineer, Fi; /archives/xfs/2003-02/msg00515.html (9,634 bytes)
12. Re: U320 Large Array Performance (score: 1): Author: "Rick Smith" <rgsmith72@xxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Tue, 04 Feb 2003 14:47:34 -0800; Here is the output from xfs_info, please excuse the formatting. I am using a chunk size of 4K in the raid. Larger sizes seem to degrade performance. Thanks for your help. With 14 disks in the array:; /archives/xfs/2003-02/msg00516.html (11,170 bytes)
13. Re: U320 Large Array Performance (score: 1): Author: Steve Lord <lord@xxxxxxx>; Date: 04 Feb 2003 17:45:18 -0600; I was going to have a chat with someone about this, but they are gone for the day, so stripe suggestions will have to wait a while. Do you have any way of measuring the I/O going on to each drive? Th; /archives/xfs/2003-02/msg00517.html (13,681 bytes)
14. Re: U320 Large Array Performance (score: 1): Author: Steve Lord <lord@xxxxxxx>; Date: 05 Feb 2003 12:02:08 -0600; Can you do one more thing for me, with these configurations send me the xfs_bmap -v output for a file on each filesystem. Thanks, Steve -- Steve Lord voice: +1-651-683-3511 Principal Engineer, Filesy; /archives/xfs/2003-02/msg00532.html (8,384 bytes)
15. Re: U320 Large Array Performance (score: 1): Author: "Rick Smith" <rgsmith72@xxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Wed, 05 Feb 2003 12:33:40 -0800; After examining the output of the xfs_bmap that I sent you it looks like each file has a different allocation group for the 15 disk case. With 14 disks (73GB each) there are 240 allocation groups wh; /archives/xfs/2003-02/msg00535.html (9,084 bytes)
16. Re: U320 Large Array Performance (score: 1): Author: "Rick Smith" <rgsmith72@xxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Wed, 05 Feb 2003 11:53:23 -0800; Here is the data you requested. By the way, I experimented with agsize as you suggested and it didn't have any affect. In fact (as you probably know), the tool mkfs.xfs produces a warning when agsiz; /archives/xfs/2003-02/msg00536.html (10,502 bytes)
17. Re: U320 Large Array Performance (score: 1): Author: "Rick Smith" <rgsmith72@xxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Wed, 05 Feb 2003 12:48:06 -0800; 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 resul; /archives/xfs/2003-02/msg00537.html (9,344 bytes)
18. Re: U320 Large Array Performance (score: 1): Author: "Rick Smith" <rgsmith72@xxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Wed, 05 Feb 2003 11:53:23 -0800; Here is the data you requested. By the way, I experimented with agsize as you suggested and it didn't have any affect. In fact (as you probably know), the tool mkfs.xfs produces a warning when agsiz; /archives/xfs/2003-02/msg00540.html (10,524 bytes)
19. U320 Large Array Performance (score: 1): Author: "Rick Smith" <rgsmith72@xxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Tue, 04 Feb 2003 14:09:40 -0800; I am constructing a large, high performance U320 raid0 array with XFS using the 2.4.20-rc1-xfs kernel and linux software raid. I am pleased with the performance, but it seems that when I exceed 14 di; /archives/xfs/2003-02/msg00998.html (8,867 bytes)
20. Re: U320 Large Array Performance (score: 1): Author: Steve Lord <lord@xxxxxxx>; Date: 04 Feb 2003 16:16:05 -0600; Sounds like you need to play with mkfs options on XFS. Can you send the output of xfs_info /mnt where /mnt is the mounted filesystem. Steve -- Steve Lord voice: +1-651-683-3511 Principal Engineer, Fi; /archives/xfs/2003-02/msg00999.html (9,704 bytes)

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