[lkml]   [2006]   [May]   [23]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: tuning for large files in xfs
    On Tue, May 23, 2006 at 06:41:36PM -0700, fitzboy wrote:
    > I read online in multiple places that the largest allocation groups
    > should get is 4g,

    Thats not correct (for a few years now).

    > I was also thinking that the more AGs the better since I do a lot of
    > parallel reads/writes... granted it doesn't change the file system all
    > that much (the file only grows or get existing blocks get modified), so
    > I am not sure if the number of AGs matter, does it?

    Yes, it can matter. For large extents like you have here, AGs
    introduce a discontinuity that you'd otherwise not have.

    > Sorry, I meant that moving the Inode size to 2k (over 256bytes) gave me
    > a sizeable increase in performance... I assume that is because the
    > extent map can be smaller now (since blocks are much larger, less blocks
    > to keep track of). Of course, ideal would be to have InodeSize be large
    > and blocksize to be 32k... but I hit the limits on both...

    It means that more extents/btree records fit inline in the inode,
    as theres more space available after the stat data. 2k is your
    best choice for inode size, stick with that.

    > > - Preallocate the space in the file - i.e. before running the
    > > dd you can do an "xfs_io -c 'resvsp 0 2t' /mnt/array/disk1/xxx"
    > > (preallocates 2 terabytes) and then overwrite that. Yhis will
    > > give you an optimal layout.
    > I tried this a couple of times, but it seemed to wedge the machine... I
    > would do: 1) touch a file (just to create it), 2) do the above command

    Oh, use the -f (create) option and you won't need a touch.

    > which would then show effect in du, but the file size was still 0 3) I
    > then opened that file (without O_TRUNC or O_APPEND) and started to write
    > out to it. It would work fine for a few minutes but after about 5 or 7GB
    > the machine would freeze... nothing in syslog, only a brief message on
    > console about come cpu state being bad...

    Hmm - I'd be interested to hear if that happens with a recent

    > > - Your extent map is fairly large, the 2.6.17 kernel will have
    > > some improvements in the way the memory management is done here
    > > which may help you a bit too.
    > we have plenty of memory on the machines, shouldn't be an issue... I am
    > a little cautious about moving to a new kernel though...

    Its not the amount of memory that was the issue here, its more the
    way we were using it that was a problem for kernels of the vintage
    you're using here. You will definately see better performance in
    a 2.6.17 kernel with that large extent map.


    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to
    More majordomo info at
    Please read the FAQ at

     \ /
      Last update: 2006-05-24 04:26    [W:0.022 / U:68.604 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site