On 11-01-27 10:40 AM, Justin Piszcz wrote: > > > On Thu, 27 Jan 2011, Mark Lord wrote: .. >> Can you recommend a good set of mkfs.xfs parameters to suit the characteristics >> of this system? Eg. Only a few thousand active inodes, and nearly all files are >> in the 600MB -> 20GB size range. The usage pattern it must handle is up to >> six concurrent streaming writes at the same time as up to three streaming reads, >> with no significant delays permitted on the reads. >> >> That's the kind of workload that I find XFS handles nicely, >> and EXT4 has given me trouble with in the past. .. > I did a load of benchmarks a long time ago testing every mkfs.xfs option there > was, and I found that most of the time (if not all), the defaults were the best. .. I am concerned with fragmentation on the very special workload in this case. I'd really like the 20GB files, written over a 1-2 hour period, to consist of a very few very large extents, as much as possible. Rather than hundreds or thousands of "tiny" MB sized extents. I wonder what the best mkfs.xfs parameters might be to encourage that? Cheers _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
