On Tue, Jul 03, 2012 at 09:44:38AM -0700, Tommi Virtanen wrote: > We've seen similar issues with btrfs, and others have reported that > the large metadata btrfs option helps. We're still compiling > information, but as of right now I hear best performance tends to > happen with xfs; however, the lead position tends to shift around a > lot. Btw, does anyone know which part of the btrfs metadata is hit hard? It's been a while that I looked at the OSD code, but IIRC it didn't create too big directories, does it? For heavy directory operations XFS filesystems created using large directorit blocks (mkfs.xfs -n size=64k) will also provide additional benefits. Also IIRC the OSDs have a directory per VDI image - for that kind of usage pattern the -o filestreams mount option of XFS should provide even more performance advatages. Either way make sure to mount with -o inode64, and for not so recent kernels -o delaylog. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe ceph-devel" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
