IIRC XFS also has long fsck times. I don't know of any fs's which don't, but I guess you've seen different behavior with respect to ext4 vs xfs on that issue. One thing I like about XFS is the short mkfs time, on the order of a few seconds vs minutes or hours with EXT3/4 for large fs's. On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 9:57 AM, Gerald Brandt <gbr at majentis.com> wrote: > Thanks for the ext4 comments. ?My issues with ext4 (and 3) are the long fsck times. ?In case of a reboot, w need to be up, and not waiting hours for 6 TB to fsck. > > Gerald > > > ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Robert Krig" <robert at bitcaster.de> >> To: gluster-users at gluster.org >> Sent: Thursday, October 20, 2011 8:53:50 AM >> Subject: Re: Optimal XFS formatting? >> >> >> 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 >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 >
