Try using ext4 if you can. Small file read performance will be MUCH better than xfs. On the other hand, you might wanna run some benchmark tests which resemble your workload, to compare xfs vs ext4 both with and without glusterfs. On 10/20/2011 03:36 PM, Sabuj Pattanayek wrote: > Hi, > > I've seen that EXT4 has better random I/O performance than XFS, > especially on small reads and writes. For large sequential reads and > writes XFS is a little bit better. For really large sequential reads > and write EXT4 and XFS are about the same. I used to format XFS using > this: > > mkfs.xfs -l size=64m > > (notes from http://everything2.com/title/Filesystem+performance+tweaking+with+XFS+on+Linux) > > but realized that it doesn't seem to effect performance for me. You > should definitely try mounting with this : > > mount -t xfs -o rw,noatime,nodiratime,logbufs=8 > > HTH, > Sabuj > > On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 8:18 AM, Gerald Brandt <gbr at majentis.com> wrote: >> Hi, >> >> Are there any 'optimal' settings for XFS formatting under GlusterFS? The storage will be used for Virtual Disk storage, virtual disk size from 8GB to 100 GB in size. >> >> One of the VM's (separate gluster volume) will be running MSSQL server (4K reads and writes). The other will be running file servers, etc). >> >> Thanks, >> Gerald >> _______________________________________________ >> Gluster-users mailing list >> Gluster-users at gluster.org >> http://gluster.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gluster-users >> > _______________________________________________ > Gluster-users mailing list > Gluster-users at gluster.org > http://gluster.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gluster-users
