Hi Stan On 01/13/2015 09:06 PM, Stan Hoeppner wrote: > This workload seems more suited to a database than a filesystem. Though > surely you've already considered such, and chose not to go that route. > Yepp, but as we do not fully control the server software and need to work further on the binary blobs arriving, a database is also not that well suited for it, but yes, we looked into it (and run mysql, marida, cassandra, mongo, postgresql, ...) > With high fragmentation you get lots of seeking. What model disks are > these? What is your RAID10 geometry? Are your partitions properly > aligned to that geometry, and to the drives (512n/512e)? Disks are 2TB Hitachi SATA drives (Ultrastar, HUA722020ALA330). As these are some yrs old, they are native 512byte ones. They are connected via an Areca 1261ML controller with a Supermicro backplane. RAID striping is not ideal (128kByte per member disk) and thus our xfs layout is not ideal as well. Things we plan to change with the next attempt ;) After the arrival of "advanced format" HDD and SSDs we usually try to align everything to full 1 MByte or larger, just to be sure any combination of 512b, 4kb, ... will eventually align :) Cheers Carsten _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
