On Wed, Dec 22, 2010 at 12:10:06PM -0500, Justin Piszcz wrote: > Do you have an example/of what you found? i don't have the numbers anymore, they are with a previous employer. basically using dbench (there were cifs NAS machines, so dbench seemed as good or bad as anything to test with) the performance was about 3x better between 'old' and 'new' with a small number of workers and about 10x better with a large number i don't know how much difference each of inode64 and getting the geom right made each, but bother were quite measurable in the graphs i made at the time from memory the machines are raid50 (4x (5+1)) with 2TB drives, so about 38TB usable on each one initially these machines were 3ware controllers and later on LSI (the two products lines have since merged so it's not clear how much difference that makes now) in testing 16GB for xfs_repair wasn't enough, so they were upped to 64GB, that's likely largely a result of the fact there were 100s of millions of small files (as well as some large ones) > Is it dependent on the RAID card? perhaps, do you have a BBU and enable WC? certainly we found the LSI cards to be faster in most cases than the (now old) 3ware where i am now i use larger chassis and no hw raid cards, using sw raid on these works spectacularly well with the exception of burst of small seeky writes (which a BBU + wc soaks up quite well) _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
