I also experimented 1k block size on GFS1. Although you can improve the disk usage using a smaller block size, typically it is recommended to use the block size same as the page size, which is 4k in Linux. I don't remember all the details of results. However, for large files, the overall performance of read/write operations with 1k block size was much worse than the one with 4k block size. This is obvious, though. If you don't care any performance degradation for large files, it would be fine for you to use 1k. Just my two cents, -Jun On Fri, Dec 17, 2010 at 3:53 PM, Jeff Sturm <jeff.sturm@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > One of our GFS filesystems tends to have a large number of very small files, > on average about 1000 bytes each. > > > > I realized this week we'd created our filesystems with default options. As > an experiment on a test system, I've recreated a GFS filesystem with "-b > 1024" to reduce overall disk usage and disk bandwidth. > > > > Initially, tests look very good—single file creates are less than one > millisecond on average (down from about 5ms each). Before I go very far > with this, I wanted to ask: Has anyone else experimented with the block > size option, and are there any tricks or gotchas to report? > > > > (This is with CentOS 5.5, GFS 1.) > > > > -Jeff > > > > -- > Linux-cluster mailing list > Linux-cluster@xxxxxxxxxx > https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-cluster > -- Linux-cluster mailing list Linux-cluster@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-cluster
