Search String: Display: Description: Sort:

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*performance\s+patches\s*$/: 30 ]

Total 30 documents matching your query.

1. performance patches (score: 1)
Author: >
Date: Fri, 26 Apr 2002 09:30:53 -0400
I received an email from Paul Schutte that referred to some performance patches for 2.4.9-31SGI_XFS_1.1smp. Can anyone be more specific. Are there any writeups on this? Michael C. Rock JM Stewart Cor
/archives/xfs/2002-04/msg00435.html (7,554 bytes)

2. Re: performance patches (score: 1)
Author: >
Date: Fri, 26 Apr 2002 08:47:00 -0500 (CDT)
Paul send the same patch to the list recently; it's on the list of things to look at. Can you follow up with the questions from yesterday; i.e. what sort of storage are you using, etc? -Eric -- Eric
/archives/xfs/2002-04/msg00436.html (8,471 bytes)

3. Re: performance patches (score: 1)
Author: >
Date: Fri, 26 Apr 2002 15:41:40 +0200
I refered to improvements made since XFS 1.0.2 and XFS 1.1 Paul
/archives/xfs/2002-04/msg00437.html (7,983 bytes)

4. Re: performance patches (score: 1)
Author: >
Date: Fri, 26 Apr 2002 15:51:46 +0200
That's not what I recommended to him. Here is my mail to him. I don't know what I have break with that patch that I send in and would rather have SGI guys test is first.
/archives/xfs/2002-04/msg00438.html (9,122 bytes)

5. Re: performance patches (score: 1)
Author: >
Date: Fri, 26 Apr 2002 09:01:13 -0500 (CDT)
Ah, I stand corrected. And we're not ignoring that other patch, just Thanks, -Eric -- Eric Sandeen XFS for Linux http://oss.sgi.com/projects/xfs sandeen@xxxxxxx SGI, Inc.
/archives/xfs/2002-04/msg00439.html (8,553 bytes)

6. Re: performance patches (score: 1)
Author: >
Date: Fri, 26 Apr 2002 16:09:30 +0200
Is there a good reason for having the logsize=1200b by default ? I have found that it almost alway causes slowdown under heavy I/O. Can't we make it 8192b (32Mb) by default. 27968 kb is not much to s
/archives/xfs/2002-04/msg00440.html (9,105 bytes)

7. Re: performance patches (score: 1)
Author: >
Date: 26 Apr 2002 09:30:21 -0500
If you are putting xfs on a disk and not using it for I/O intensive operations, then a smaller log is all you need. There is a cost associated with a larger log - longer mount times even when the fil
/archives/xfs/2002-04/msg00441.html (9,572 bytes)

8. Re: performance patches (score: 1)
Author: >
Date: Fri, 26 Apr 2002 11:02:15 -0400
According to the Irix 6.5.13 announcement: Improved exit codes for the xfsrestore and xfsdump commands. Changed the mkfs command to allow you to specify the size of an XFS allocation group, as an alt
/archives/xfs/2002-04/msg00442.html (10,367 bytes)

9. Re: performance patches (score: 1)
Author: >
Date: Fri, 26 Apr 2002 17:49:01 +0200
I know that it grows with the size, but the rate is much too slow. If you create a 2Gb filesystem, you will have a 1200b log. If you create a 64Gb filesystem, you still have the same 1200b log. (That
/archives/xfs/2002-04/msg00443.html (11,538 bytes)

10. Re: performance patches (score: 1)
Author: >
Date: 26 Apr 2002 10:53:31 -0500
There is a new batch of mkfs changes coming down the pipe, when we merge this over I will play with the default mkfs sizes. And if someone can make xfs_growfs work on the log there is a case of virtu
/archives/xfs/2002-04/msg00444.html (10,552 bytes)

11. Re: performance patches (score: 1)
Author: >
Date: Fri, 26 Apr 2002 18:02:30 +0200
I do not know what is best. The quality of the product or the quality of service/people. Thanx GUYS you are the best. Paul
/archives/xfs/2002-04/msg00445.html (10,951 bytes)

12. Re: performance patches (score: 1)
Author: >
Date: Sat, 27 Apr 2002 02:10:14 +0300 (EEST)
Hi guys Excuse me for dropping in but I wanted to say some things about this subject. We are using an XFS partition for a high I/O load (many IOPs, not too much transfer). The partition is 100Gb and
/archives/xfs/2002-04/msg00455.html (10,690 bytes)

13. Re: performance patches (score: 1)
Author: >
Date: Sat, 27 Apr 2002 13:42:09 +0200
Format is (device major, disk index):(sum of all io requests, sum of read io requests, sum of blocks read, sum of write io requests, sum of blocks written) (Source: http://banyan.dlut.edu.cn/news/091
/archives/xfs/2002-04/msg00461.html (9,112 bytes)

14. Re: performance patches (score: 1)
Author: >
Date: 27 Apr 2002 07:01:23 -0500
If you look in cmd/xfsmisc in the cvs tree you will find a script called xfs_stats.pl, make this an executable and it will dump all sorts of stats out of xfs. There is text further down the file whic
/archives/xfs/2002-04/msg00462.html (10,347 bytes)

15. Re: performance patches (score: 1)
Author: >
Date: Sun, 28 Apr 2002 11:16:26 +0100
For full features (i.e. $BIGNUM of disks) you need sard support in your kernel. This has been in many vendor kernels for ages and a cleaned up version made it into 2.4.19-pre. Thats means for XFS1.1
/archives/xfs/2002-04/msg00466.html (9,155 bytes)

16. performance patches (score: 1)
Author: xx>
Date: Fri, 26 Apr 2002 09:30:53 -0400
I received an email from Paul Schutte that referred to some performance patches for 2.4.9-31SGI_XFS_1.1smp. Can anyone be more specific. Are there any writeups on this? Michael C. Rock JM Stewart Cor
/archives/xfs/2002-04/msg00979.html (7,554 bytes)

17. Re: performance patches (score: 1)
Author: xx>
Date: Fri, 26 Apr 2002 08:47:00 -0500 (CDT)
Paul send the same patch to the list recently; it's on the list of things to look at. Can you follow up with the questions from yesterday; i.e. what sort of storage are you using, etc? -Eric -- Eric
/archives/xfs/2002-04/msg00980.html (8,471 bytes)

18. Re: performance patches (score: 1)
Author: xx>
Date: Fri, 26 Apr 2002 15:41:40 +0200
I refered to improvements made since XFS 1.0.2 and XFS 1.1 Paul
/archives/xfs/2002-04/msg00981.html (7,983 bytes)

19. Re: performance patches (score: 1)
Author: xx>
Date: Fri, 26 Apr 2002 15:51:46 +0200
That's not what I recommended to him. Here is my mail to him. I don't know what I have break with that patch that I send in and would rather have SGI guys test is first.
/archives/xfs/2002-04/msg00982.html (9,122 bytes)

20. Re: performance patches (score: 1)
Author: xx>
Date: Fri, 26 Apr 2002 09:01:13 -0500 (CDT)
Ah, I stand corrected. And we're not ignoring that other patch, just Thanks, -Eric -- Eric Sandeen XFS for Linux http://oss.sgi.com/projects/xfs sandeen@xxxxxxx SGI, Inc.
/archives/xfs/2002-04/msg00983.html (8,553 bytes)


This search system is powered by Namazu