Stan Hoeppner wrote: > If you keep growing until you consume the disk, you'll have ~100 > allocation groups. Typically you'd want to have no more than 4 AGs per > spindle. You already have 42 (or 45) which will tend to seek the disk > to death with many workloads, driving latency through the roof and > decreasing throughput substantially. Do you notice any performance > problems yet? What are expected rates for copying e.g. a 10GB file? It's a Seagate Barracuda 3000GB Model ST3000DM001 SATA connected to SATA 6 Gb/s chip. The source and the destination FS is LUKS crypted. About 3 GB usable RAM (cache), AMD FX-8350 processor @ max. 3800MHz. It's getting slower as more as the free space on the fs is reduced (beginning at about the last GB). Resizing it makes the problem disappear again. > Or is this XFS strictly being used as a WORM like backup > silo? yes Thanks, Michael _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
