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

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*XFS\s+peculiar\s+behavior\s*$/: 11 ]

Total 11 documents matching your query.

1. XFS peculiar behavior (score: 1): Author: Yannis Klonatos <klonatos@xxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Wed, 23 Jun 2010 10:37:19 +0300; Hi all! I have come across the following peculiar behavior in XFS and i would appreciate any information anyone could provide. In our lab we have a system that has twelve 500GByte hard disks (total c; /archives/xfs/2010-06/msg00278.html (8,307 bytes)
2. Re: XFS peculiar behavior (score: 1): Author: Michael Monnerie <michael.monnerie@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Wed, 23 Jun 2010 12:16:18 +0200; Interesting. I have no idea why this happens and would be interested in investigation too. As a quick help, maybe using allocsize=1G in the xfs mount options would help? How many AGs does the filesy; /archives/xfs/2010-06/msg00279.html (8,240 bytes)
3. Re: XFS peculiar behavior (score: 1): Author: Andi Kleen <andi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Wed, 23 Jun 2010 12:24:27 +0200; Why is that a problem? I don't know if it's the only reason, but XFS does a lot of data structure locking and updates per allocation group, so spreading to multiple AGs gives better scalability to ma; /archives/xfs/2010-06/msg00280.html (7,427 bytes)
4. Re: XFS peculiar behavior (score: 1): Author: Michael Monnerie <michael.monnerie@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Wed, 23 Jun 2010 17:04:55 +0200; This only helps if there are metadata operations, right? So in the case where you have one big database "file" of 50GB, it should be ordered sector-by-sector to get the maximum performance, and minim; /archives/xfs/2010-06/msg00281.html (9,058 bytes)
5. Re: XFS peculiar behavior (score: 1): Author: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Wed, 23 Jun 2010 11:21:45 -0500; xfs_bmap output would be a lot nicer. Maybe you can paste that here to show exactly what the layout is. -Eric; /archives/xfs/2010-06/msg00282.html (8,837 bytes)
6. Re: XFS peculiar behavior (score: 1): Author: Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Thu, 24 Jun 2010 09:17:00 +1000; The reasons for it being split are wide and varied. We need more information before trying to determie the reason. The output of "xfs_info <mntpt>" will tell us your filesystem geometry and the outpu; /archives/xfs/2010-06/msg00285.html (9,642 bytes)
7. Re: XFS peculiar behavior (score: 1): Author: Yannis Klonatos <klonatos@xxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Thu, 24 Jun 2010 17:11:29 +0300; Hello again, First of all, thank you all for your quick replies. I attach all the information you requested in your responses. 1) The output of xfs_info is the following: meta-data=/dev/sdf isize=256; /archives/xfs/2010-06/msg00288.html (13,205 bytes)
8. Re: XFS peculiar behavior (score: 1): Author: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Thu, 24 Jun 2010 10:21:17 -0500; The file started out in the last AG, and then had to wrap around, because it hit the end of the filesystem. :) It was then somewhat sequential in AGs 4,5,6,7 after that, though not perfectly so. This; /archives/xfs/2010-06/msg00289.html (15,258 bytes)
9. Re: XFS peculiar behavior (score: 1): Author: Yannis Klonatos <klonatos@xxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Thu, 24 Jun 2010 18:35:42 +0300; First of all, thank you all for your quick replies. I attach all the information you requested in your responses. 1) The output of xfs_info is the following: meta-data=/dev/sdf isize=256 agcount=32,; /archives/xfs/2010-06/msg00290.html (16,692 bytes)
10. Re: XFS peculiar behavior (score: 1): Author: Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Fri, 25 Jun 2010 10:46:30 +1000; For inode64, yes. For inode32, the first ag is derived from the /proc/sys/fs/xfs/rotorstep sysctl. Changing the value of the step will likely change the first AG location of the database in this test; /archives/xfs/2010-06/msg00294.html (14,122 bytes)
11. Re: XFS peculiar behavior (score: 1): Author: Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Fri, 25 Jun 2010 10:58:36 +1000; XFS spreads allocation out over it's entire address space to enable utilisation of all the disks backing the filesystem (think linear concatenation of devices). This is sub-optimal for a small number; /archives/xfs/2010-06/msg00295.html (12,121 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 11
Page: [1]