Le Sat, 19 Feb 2011 14:33:58 -0600 vous Ãcriviez:
> To bring this back around to the OP's original question, do you agree
> or disagree with my assertion that a 64 KiB XFS block size will yield
> little if any advantage over a 4 KiB block size, and may in fact have
> some disadvantages, specifically with small file random IO?
Undoubtly. The very big block size of Exastore probably is due to its
parallel cluster configuration; all parallel clusters filesystems I
know of (Lustre, PVFS2, CEPH, Isilon, etc) use 64K or bigger blocks.
The exastore big block size is a constraint due to its architecture,
not a desirable improvement. In fact, exanet suffered from many
performance problems, because general use parallel clusters are hard.
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Emmanuel Florac | Direction technique
| Intellique
| <eflorac@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
| +33 1 78 94 84 02
------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
xfs mailing list
xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
