On Thu, May 07, 2015 at 07:16:02PM +0700, Dewangga wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > Hello Martin, > Thanks for your reply, yes I've read that link, but another question, > is noatime,nodiratime,etc still valid for performance tuning guidance? You may have read it, but I don't think it sunk in.... > Even the default mount options only "rw,inode64,seclabel,attr2". Where's relatime(*)? That's been a default for a lot longer than inode64... $ grep "root " /proc/mounts /dev/root / xfs rw,relatime,attr2,inode64,noquota 0 0 $ > Is it still increase the performance if the additional mount options > added? Depends on your workload, which is more critical to understand than anything else. Why? because it's your workload that is going to determine if twiddling a knob is going to have any effect on performance. Once you understand the workload and what the bottlenecks are, then you can look at what knobs the filesystem provides to alleviate those bottlenecks. IOWs, asking the question "how do I tune my filesystem for best performance" is, fundamentally, the wrong way to go about obtaining best filesystem performance. The questions that need to be answered are "what bottlenecks does my application have?" followed by "what does the filesystem provide to alleviate those bottlenecks". i.e. understand the problem you need to solve *before* you try to solve it, otherwise you "solve" the wrong problem... Cheers, Dave. (*) An example of exactly what I'm talking abou there. The default option of relatime gets >95% of the benefit of noatime onmost workloads compared to the old strictatime behaviour, but unlike noatime it still retains atime updates. IOWs there's a pretty good chance that noatime has little measurable impact on your application's performance, but understanding and benchmarking anything other than your application won't tell you this. -- Dave Chinner david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
