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

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*XFS\s+\-\s+Performance\s+Optimazation\.\s*$/: 24 ]

Total 24 documents matching your query.

1. XFS - Performance Optimazation. (score: 1): Author: x>; Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2001 19:35:33 +0530; I'm including the XFS filesystem into my Linux kernel. The Kernel will be running a video application and hence handle huuuuugggge files and I need a very high transfer rate. (I can hear you asking,; /archives/xfs/2001-04/msg00567.html (7,812 bytes)
2. Re: XFS - Performance Optimazation. (score: 1): Author: x>; Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2001 10:15:49 -0500; Actually no, XFS is useful for lots of applications, it is not just a streaming data application server. Actually XFS supports a block size of the system page size right now on linux, so you are res; /archives/xfs/2001-04/msg00570.html (10,178 bytes)
3. Re: XFS - Performance Optimazation. (score: 1): Author: x>; Date: 25 Apr 2001 11:28:11 -0400; MD RAID0, actually. I get slightly lower performance with LVM. Modern drives seem to like 64-128KB I/Os. The test Steve mentioned above was done with a 64KB stripe unit and consequently 512 KB strip; /archives/xfs/2001-04/msg00572.html (9,254 bytes)
4. Re: XFS - Performance Optimazation. (score: 1): Author: x>; Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2001 14:43:10 -0400; This performance sounds great, and I would like to try to duplicate it. I also have fibre disks, so the hardware should be fine. I have some questions. 1. What mkfs options did you use? You imply it; /archives/xfs/2001-04/msg00581.html (9,794 bytes)
5. Re: XFS - Performance Optimazation. (score: 1): Author: x>; Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2001 20:52:57 +0200; For very high bandwidth you probably need to use O_DIRECT. dd doesn't set that flag normally. -Andi; /archives/xfs/2001-04/msg00582.html (8,409 bytes)
6. Re: XFS - Performance Optimazation. (score: 1): Author: x>; Date: 25 Apr 2001 15:10:02 -0400; Default values. mkfs.xfs extracts the stripe unit and stripe width from the underlying volume. The box is a dual PIII/550 with 128 MB RAM, 8 x 10Krpm FC-AL disks hanging off a QLA2200 controller. MD; /archives/xfs/2001-04/msg00583.html (10,562 bytes)
7. Re: XFS - Performance Optimazation. (score: 1): Author: x>; Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2001 14:15:12 -0500; As Martin Petersen who actually did this pointed out, he was using MD Raid0 not LVM for the best performance, he also stated this: The xfs mkfs program will detect the md or lvm volume and determine; /archives/xfs/2001-04/msg00584.html (10,025 bytes)
8. Re: XFS - Performance Optimazation. (score: 1): Author: x>; Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2001 13:13:57 -0500; I guess my point here was that since xfs is currently making filesystems with a 4K block size, there is not a lot you can do with mkfs options to get better throughput right now. We are working on s; /archives/xfs/2001-04/msg00604.html (10,054 bytes)
9. XFS - Performance Optimazation. (score: 1): Author: xxxx>; Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2001 19:35:33 +0530; I'm including the XFS filesystem into my Linux kernel. The Kernel will be running a video application and hence handle huuuuugggge files and I need a very high transfer rate. (I can hear you asking,; /archives/xfs/2001-04/msg01249.html (7,812 bytes)
10. Re: XFS - Performance Optimazation. (score: 1): Author: xxxx>; Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2001 10:15:49 -0500; Actually no, XFS is useful for lots of applications, it is not just a streaming data application server. Actually XFS supports a block size of the system page size right now on linux, so you are res; /archives/xfs/2001-04/msg01252.html (10,178 bytes)
11. Re: XFS - Performance Optimazation. (score: 1): Author: xxxx>; Date: 25 Apr 2001 11:28:11 -0400; MD RAID0, actually. I get slightly lower performance with LVM. Modern drives seem to like 64-128KB I/Os. The test Steve mentioned above was done with a 64KB stripe unit and consequently 512 KB strip; /archives/xfs/2001-04/msg01254.html (9,254 bytes)
12. Re: XFS - Performance Optimazation. (score: 1): Author: xxxx>; Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2001 14:43:10 -0400; This performance sounds great, and I would like to try to duplicate it. I also have fibre disks, so the hardware should be fine. I have some questions. 1. What mkfs options did you use? You imply it; /archives/xfs/2001-04/msg01263.html (9,794 bytes)
13. Re: XFS - Performance Optimazation. (score: 1): Author: xxxx>; Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2001 20:52:57 +0200; For very high bandwidth you probably need to use O_DIRECT. dd doesn't set that flag normally. -Andi; /archives/xfs/2001-04/msg01264.html (8,409 bytes)
14. Re: XFS - Performance Optimazation. (score: 1): Author: xxxx>; Date: 25 Apr 2001 15:10:02 -0400; Default values. mkfs.xfs extracts the stripe unit and stripe width from the underlying volume. The box is a dual PIII/550 with 128 MB RAM, 8 x 10Krpm FC-AL disks hanging off a QLA2200 controller. MD; /archives/xfs/2001-04/msg01265.html (10,562 bytes)
15. Re: XFS - Performance Optimazation. (score: 1): Author: xxxx>; Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2001 14:15:12 -0500; As Martin Petersen who actually did this pointed out, he was using MD Raid0 not LVM for the best performance, he also stated this: The xfs mkfs program will detect the md or lvm volume and determine; /archives/xfs/2001-04/msg01266.html (10,025 bytes)
16. Re: XFS - Performance Optimazation. (score: 1): Author: xxxx>; Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2001 13:13:57 -0500; I guess my point here was that since xfs is currently making filesystems with a 4K block size, there is not a lot you can do with mkfs options to get better throughput right now. We are working on s; /archives/xfs/2001-04/msg01286.html (10,054 bytes)
17. XFS - Performance Optimazation. (score: 1): Author: "C.G.Senthilkumar." <senthilkumar.cheeta@xxxxxxxxx>; Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2001 19:35:33 +0530; Hi, I'm including the XFS filesystem into my Linux kernel. The Kernel will be running a video application and hence handle huuuuugggge files and I need a very high transfer rate. (I can hear you aski; /archives/xfs/2001-04/msg01931.html (7,812 bytes)
18. Re: XFS - Performance Optimazation. (score: 1): Author: Steve Lord <lord@xxxxxxx>; Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2001 10:15:49 -0500; Actually no, XFS is useful for lots of applications, it is not just a streaming data application server. Actually XFS supports a block size of the system page size right now on linux, so you are res; /archives/xfs/2001-04/msg01934.html (10,257 bytes)
19. Re: XFS - Performance Optimazation. (score: 1): Author: "Martin K. Petersen" <mkp@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: 25 Apr 2001 11:28:11 -0400; MD RAID0, actually. I get slightly lower performance with LVM. Modern drives seem to like 64-128KB I/Os. The test Steve mentioned above was done with a 64KB stripe unit and consequently 512 KB strip; /archives/xfs/2001-04/msg01936.html (9,350 bytes)
20. Re: XFS - Performance Optimazation. (score: 1): Author: Rob Creecy <rcreecy@xxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2001 14:43:10 -0400; This performance sounds great, and I would like to try to duplicate it. I also have fibre disks, so the hardware should be fine. I have some questions. 1. What mkfs options did you use? You imply it; /archives/xfs/2001-04/msg01945.html (9,827 bytes)

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