Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*poor\s+io\s+performance\s+with\s+xfs\+raid5\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*poor\s+io\s+performance\s+with\s+xfs\+raid5\s*$/: 42 ]

Total 42 documents matching your query.

1. poor io performance with xfs+raid5 (score: 1): Author: >; Date: Thu, 25 Apr 2002 13:56:52 -0500; xfs/kernel gurus, i am having a problem with a xfs fs on a raid5 array. i experience extremely poor i/o performance. i notice a LOT of processes enter into an uninterruptable sleep state when attempt; /archives/xfs/2002-04/msg00385.html (9,921 bytes)
2. Re: poor io performance with xfs+raid5 (score: 1): Author: >; Date: Thu, 25 Apr 2002 13:13:48 -0600; This was a known problem at release time: http://oss.sgi.com/projects/xfs/1.1_caveats.html XFS 1.1 supports MD RAID0, RAID1 and RAID5. RAID5 with an internal log may perform slightly worse with XFS t; /archives/xfs/2002-04/msg00386.html (8,614 bytes)
3. Re: poor io performance with xfs+raid5 (score: 1): Author: >; Date: 25 Apr 2002 14:11:10 -0500; The code which fixes this is stuck in my todo pile in an almost working state, but almost working includes a tendency to occasionally do a log write into a random spot and occasionally refuse to moun; /archives/xfs/2002-04/msg00387.html (12,303 bytes)
4. Re: poor io performance with xfs+raid5 (score: 1): Author: >; Date: Thu, 25 Apr 2002 12:17:21 -0700 (PDT); Quick related question... (and I haven't been following the group closely recently) does this affect any sort of hardware RAID 5? What about RAID 1+0? -- Justin Coffey 858.535.9332 x 2025 Technical A; /archives/xfs/2002-04/msg00388.html (13,279 bytes)
5. Re: poor io performance with xfs+raid5 (score: 1): Author: >; Date: 25 Apr 2002 14:21:34 -0500; The alignment issue is mostly software raid5 specific. The ability to better align the writes will help on other configs to a lesser extent. Steve -- Steve Lord voice: +1-651-683-3511 Principal Engin; /archives/xfs/2002-04/msg00389.html (9,370 bytes)
6. Re: poor io performance with xfs+raid5 (score: 1): Author: >; Date: Thu, 25 Apr 2002 12:22:49 -0700 (PDT); Thanks. We're in the design phase of a new product and it's likely to use some sort of largish NAS box. Most likely raid 5'ed. Initially (due to cost) we'll probably do software raid but we'll want; /archives/xfs/2002-04/msg00390.html (9,629 bytes)
7. Re: poor io performance with xfs+raid5 (score: 1): Author: >; Date: 25 Apr 2002 14:28:16 -0500; Depends when you need the performance speed up... I can send you code now, it works most of the time, I just have a couple of anomalies to chase. Steve -- Steve Lord voice: +1-651-683-3511 Principal; /archives/xfs/2002-04/msg00391.html (10,414 bytes)
8. Re: poor io performance with xfs+raid5 (score: 1): Author: >; Date: Thu, 25 Apr 2002 14:29:59 -0500; argh! i found this blurb on the 1.0.1 caveats page and looked for a link to the 1.1 caveats page to see if it still existed in the 1.1 release but could not find a link. i even guessed at some possib; /archives/xfs/2002-04/msg00392.html (10,080 bytes)
9. Re: poor io performance with xfs+raid5 (score: 1): Author: >; Date: Thu, 25 Apr 2002 12:29:36 -0700 (PDT); Okay. We're about 3 weeks away from moving off of devel hardware anyway. -- Justin Coffey 858.535.9332 x 2025 Technical Advisor justin@xxxxxxxxx Homes.com, Inc. http://homes.com --; /archives/xfs/2002-04/msg00393.html (10,233 bytes)
10. Re: poor io performance with xfs+raid5 (score: 1): Author: >; Date: Thu, 25 Apr 2002 14:34:25 -0500; ack =( aye, i spent quite a while trying to figure out why i couldn't move the log. there are several erroneous references to a non-existant -x switch. i would definitely recommend removing the growf; /archives/xfs/2002-04/msg00394.html (10,236 bytes)
11. Re: poor io performance with xfs+raid5 (score: 1): Author: >; Date: Thu, 25 Apr 2002 14:40:25 -0500; it should be noted that i am using hardware raid5: via a 3ware escalade 7850 ata-raid card. -mike -- /~\ the ascii all that is gold does not glitter \ / ribbon campaign not all those who wander are l; /archives/xfs/2002-04/msg00395.html (11,315 bytes)
12. Re: poor io performance with xfs+raid5 (score: 1): Author: >; Date: Thu, 25 Apr 2002 21:31:37 +0200; from mobile.sauter-bc.com (unknown [10.1.6.21]) by basel1.sauter-bc.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 93FC757306; Thu, 25 Apr 2002 21:31:39 +0200 (CEST) Cc: Steve Lord <lord@xxxxxxx>, Mike Eldridge <diz@x; /archives/xfs/2002-04/msg00399.html (15,174 bytes)
13. Re: poor io performance with xfs+raid5 (score: 1): Author: >; Date: 25 Apr 2002 15:19:05 -0500; Well, Duh! I should have seen that first time around, I get into the habit of reading my email too fast! We may be able to fix some things, if we can remake the filesystem. First you need to know the; /archives/xfs/2002-04/msg00404.html (11,421 bytes)
14. Re: poor io performance with xfs+raid5 (score: 1): Author: >; Date: Thu, 25 Apr 2002 15:41:35 -0500; RAID5 on this card offers only a 64K stripe size. however, i will be recreating the array as RAID1 or RAID10, which offers stripe sizes from 64K to 1MB. i'm not sure which is the best way to go. i th; /archives/xfs/2002-04/msg00407.html (12,002 bytes)
15. Re: poor io performance with xfs+raid5 (score: 1): Author: >; Date: 25 Apr 2002 15:45:23 -0500; What card is it, BTW? -- Austin Gonyou Systems Architect, CCNA Coremetrics, Inc. Phone: 512-698-7250 email: austin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx "It is the part of a good shepherd to shear his flock, not to skin i; /archives/xfs/2002-04/msg00410.html (12,411 bytes)
16. Re: poor io performance with xfs+raid5 (score: 1): Author: >; Date: Thu, 25 Apr 2002 16:08:52 -0500; i feel like a broken record. :) it's an escalade 7850 ata raid card. -mike -- /~\ the ascii all that is gold does not glitter \ / ribbon campaign not all those who wander are lost X against html -- j; /archives/xfs/2002-04/msg00413.html (13,359 bytes)
17. Re: poor io performance with xfs+raid5 (score: 1): Author: >; Date: 25 Apr 2002 16:36:10 -0500; Yeah..sorry I noticed it after reading again. :( -- Austin Gonyou Systems Architect, CCNA Coremetrics, Inc. Phone: 512-698-7250 email: austin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx "It is the part of a good shepherd to she; /archives/xfs/2002-04/msg00415.html (14,376 bytes)
18. Re: poor io performance with xfs+raid5 (score: 1): Author: >; Date: Fri, 26 Apr 2002 07:28:03 +0200 (CEST); Only software raid is affected by the unaligned access. If you use hardware raid like the escalade has there shouldn't be a problem. I have a 3disk software raid5 volume which performs reasonable eve; /archives/xfs/2002-04/msg00426.html (10,291 bytes)
19. Re: poor io performance with xfs+raid5 (score: 1): Author: >; Date: Fri, 26 Apr 2002 09:04:18 +0200; RAID5 on this card offers only a 64K stripe size. however, i will be recreating the array as RAID1 or RAID10, which offers stripe sizes from 64K to 1MB. i'm not sure which is the best way to go. i th; /archives/xfs/2002-04/msg00427.html (11,664 bytes)
20. Re: poor io performance with xfs+raid5 (score: 1): Author: >; Date: Fri, 26 Apr 2002 07:30:46 -0400; And is also notorious for mediocre performance. It appears to have been implemented largely as a checkbox feature. Doing unaligned writes to a hardware RAID device can still be a problem, if the hard; /archives/xfs/2002-04/msg00432.html (10,581 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 20
Page: [1] [2] [3]