On Donnerstag, 14. Oktober 2010 Dave Chinner wrote: > > I guess the reason one might want the "allocsize" mount > > option now becomes the opposite of why one might have > > wanted it before. I.e., it would be used to reduce > > the size of the preallocated range beyond EOF, which I > > could envision might be reasonable in some circumstances. > > It now becomes the minimum preallocation size, rather than both the > minimum and the maximum.... Until now, I often set allocsize to be <nr of data disks>*<stripe size>, i.e. in a 8 disk RAID-6 with 64KB stripe size = 6*64 = 384KB I guess this should provide the best performance. Is my assumption true? Will it change with the new code? Does XFS automatically use allocsize=<1 full stripe> so I can skip my manual allocsize options? -- mit freundlichen Grüssen, Michael Monnerie, Ing. BSc it-management Internet Services http://proteger.at [gesprochen: Prot-e-schee] Tel: 0660 / 415 65 31 ****** Radiointerview zum Thema Spam ****** http://www.it-podcast.at/archiv.html#podcast-100716 // Wir haben im Moment zwei Häuser zu verkaufen: // http://zmi.at/langegg/ // http://zmi.at/haus2009/
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
