Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*XFS\s+performance\s+problems\s+on\s+Linux\s+x86

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*XFS\s+performance\s+problems\s+on\s+Linux\s+x86_64\s*$/: 14 ]

Total 14 documents matching your query.

1. XFS performance problems on Linux x86_64 (score: 1): Author:; Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2007 22:20:05 +0100; I am using Gentoo Linux on XFS root filesystem on a number of machines, where some are P4 based i686, and some new are Intel Core 2 Duo based x86_64 based. When the new x86_64 based machines were pu; /archives/xfs/2007-11/msg00285.html (10,784 bytes)
2. Re: XFS performance problems on Linux x86_64 (score: 1): Author:; Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2007 09:05:36 +1100; mkfs.xfs -f -l lazy-count=1,version=2,size=128m -i attr=2 -d agcount=4 <dev> mount -o logbsize=256k <dev> <mtpt> And if you don't care about filsystem corruption on power loss: mount -o logbsize=256k; /archives/xfs/2007-11/msg00286.html (9,703 bytes)
3. Re: XFS performance problems on Linux x86_64 (score: 1): Author:; Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2007 00:13:57 +0100; Hello David, thanks, I was also going to ask which are optimal parameters. Just didn't have the time yet :) Any idea when these options will be default? Cheers, Bernd; /archives/xfs/2007-11/msg00287.html (7,944 bytes)
4. Re: XFS performance problems on Linux x86_64 (score: 1): Author:; Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2007 15:58:08 +1100; They should already be the defaults in the current CVS tree. ;) Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner Principal Engineer SGI Australian Software Group; /archives/xfs/2007-11/msg00302.html (8,675 bytes)
5. Re: XFS performance problems on Linux x86_64 (score: 1): Author:; Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2007 08:17:32 +0100; Hello list, I tried this parameters, and got this results with bonnie++. As i think there isnt any speedup with this parameteres, or i am doing something wrong? tsabi oldbck ~ # uname -a Linux oldbck; /archives/xfs/2007-11/msg00304.html (14,838 bytes)
6. Re: XFS performance problems on Linux x86_64 (score: 1): Author:; Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2007 18:54:31 +1100; The latter. Try creating more than 16 files in your test. Maybe 160,000 instead? Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner Principal Engineer SGI Australian Software Group; /archives/xfs/2007-11/msg00306.html (8,872 bytes)
7. Re: XFS performance problems on Linux x86_64 (score: 1): Author:; Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2007 09:17:22 +0100; David Chinner Ărta: I believe bonnie++ has a test like that too. (i dont know anything about wehat tests bonnie++ has exactly) ok, ty for the reply. I just didnt understanded why i didnt get the s; /archives/xfs/2007-11/msg00307.html (8,922 bytes)
8. XFS performance problems on Linux x86_64 (score: 1): Author: >; Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2007 22:20:05 +0100; I am using Gentoo Linux on XFS root filesystem on a number of machines, where some are P4 based i686, and some new are Intel Core 2 Duo based x86_64 based. When the new x86_64 based machines were pu; /archives/xfs/2007-11/msg00601.html (10,784 bytes)
9. Re: XFS performance problems on Linux x86_64 (score: 1): Author: >; Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2007 09:05:36 +1100; mkfs.xfs -f -l lazy-count=1,version=2,size=128m -i attr=2 -d agcount=4 <dev> mount -o logbsize=256k <dev> <mtpt> And if you don't care about filsystem corruption on power loss: mount -o logbsize=256k; /archives/xfs/2007-11/msg00602.html (9,703 bytes)
10. Re: XFS performance problems on Linux x86_64 (score: 1): Author: >; Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2007 00:13:57 +0100; Hello David, thanks, I was also going to ask which are optimal parameters. Just didn't have the time yet :) Any idea when these options will be default? Cheers, Bernd; /archives/xfs/2007-11/msg00603.html (7,944 bytes)
11. Re: XFS performance problems on Linux x86_64 (score: 1): Author: ); Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2007 15:58:08 +1100; They should already be the defaults in the current CVS tree. ;) Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner Principal Engineer SGI Australian Software Group; /archives/xfs/2007-11/msg00618.html (8,675 bytes)
12. Re: XFS performance problems on Linux x86_64 (score: 1): Author: >; Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2007 08:17:32 +0100; Hello list, I tried this parameters, and got this results with bonnie++. As i think there isnt any speedup with this parameteres, or i am doing something wrong? tsabi oldbck ~ # uname -a Linux oldbck; /archives/xfs/2007-11/msg00620.html (14,838 bytes)
13. Re: XFS performance problems on Linux x86_64 (score: 1): Author: >; Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2007 18:54:31 +1100; The latter. Try creating more than 16 files in your test. Maybe 160,000 instead? Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner Principal Engineer SGI Australian Software Group; /archives/xfs/2007-11/msg00622.html (8,872 bytes)
14. Re: XFS performance problems on Linux x86_64 (score: 1): Author: >; Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2007 09:17:22 +0100; David Chinner Ărta: I believe bonnie++ has a test like that too. (i dont know anything about wehat tests bonnie++ has exactly) ok, ty for the reply. I just didnt understanded why i didnt get the s; /archives/xfs/2007-11/msg00623.html (8,922 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 14
Page: [1]