Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 22 May 2006 18:02:30 -0700 | From | fitzboy <> | Subject | Re: Re: tuning for large files in xfs |
| |
Return-Path: <news@google.com> X-Original-To: linux-kernel@moderators.bofh.it Delivered-To: linuxmod+linux.kernel@attila.bofh.it Received: from horus.isnic.is (horus.isnic.is [193.4.58.12]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by attila.bofh.it (Postfix) with ESMTP id 057865F87F for <linux-kernel@moderators.bofh.it>; Tue, 23 May 2006 02:59:46 +0200 (CEST) Received: from proxy.google.com (proxy.google.com [66.102.0.4]) by horus.isnic.is (8.12.9p2/8.12.9/isnic) with ESMTP id k4N0xduC097233 for <linux-kernel@moderators.isc.org>; Tue, 23 May 2006 00:59:41 GMT (envelope-from news@google.com) Received: from G018037 by proxy.google.com with ESMTP id k4N0xXAA020036 for <linux-kernel@moderators.isc.org>; Mon, 22 May 2006 17:59:33 -0700 Received: (from news@localhost) by Google Production with id k4N0xXvP022170 for linux-kernel@moderators.isc.org; Mon, 22 May 2006 17:59:33 -0700 To: linux-kernel@moderators.isc.org Path: j73g2000cwa.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail From: fitzboy@iparadigms.com Newsgroups: linux.kernel Subject: Re: tuning for large files in xfs Date: 22 May 2006 17:59:27 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com Lines: 12 Message-ID: <1148345967.616414.318940@j73g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> References: <6fnNu-7ae-23@gated-at.bofh.it> <6fr4D-3JP-7@gated-at.bofh.it> NNTP-Posting-Host: 209.209.36.196 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" X-Trace: posting.google.com 1148345973 22160 127.0.0.1 (23 May 2006 00:59:33 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 23 May 2006 00:59:33 +0000 (UTC) In-Reply-To: <6fr4D-3JP-7@gated-at.bofh.it> User-Agent: G2/0.2 X-HTTP-Useragent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC Mac OS X; en) AppleWebKit/418 (KHTML, like Gecko) Safari/417.9.2,gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe) Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: j73g2000cwa.googlegroups.com; posting-host=209.209.36.196; posting-account=4elvtg0AAAAA6DoPt8oOAEoKYVdVm_2h
the sweet size for me would be a 32k block size on both the RAID and the XFS partition for me (that is the best number for my application). However, on the lower level RAID there is a very nominal performance difference between 32k and 64k stripe size (like 4%), so I just stick with the defauly 64k. And for the XFS partition, since I am on an intel machine with 2.6.8, I can only go up to a 2k blocksize...
But to answer your question, the RAID is on a 64k stripe size, and I just changed my test app to do 2k reads, and still I get the same performance (with only marginal improvement), so alignment can't be the
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |