Date: Wed, 06 Aug 2008 11:53:46 +1200
From: Mark Kirkwood <markir@paradise.net.nz>
Subject: Re: file system and raid performance
In-reply-to: <70c01d1d0808050800j7196922bt2c4b43ba09a19099@mail.gmail.com>
To: Mark Wong <markwkm@gmail.com>
Cc: greg@tcscs.com, david@lang.hm, pgsql-performance@postgresql.org,
	Gabrielle Roth <gorthx@gmail.com>
Message-id: <4898E80A.3020809@paradise.net.nz>
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
References: <70c01d1d0808042154u7b78d988vac1e461a93b0ba10@mail.gmail.com>
	<alpine.DEB.1.10.0808042201010.22058@asgard.lang.hm>
	<!&!AAAAAAAAAAAYAAAAAAAAAN6d+lQFliBLjc3jO6z0BSQigQAAEAAAANfJrgYhPS5AitwJ4U3L0vgBAAAAAA==@tcscs.com>
	<70c01d1d0808050800j7196922bt2c4b43ba09a19099@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.14 (X11/20080724)

Mark Wong wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 4, 2008 at 10:56 PM, Gregory S. Youngblood <greg@tcscs.com> wrote:
>   
>> I recently ran some tests on Ubuntu Hardy Server (Linux) comparing JFS, XFS,
>> and ZFS+FUSE. It was all 32-bit and on old hardware, plus I only used
>> bonnie++, so the numbers are really only useful for my hardware.
>>
>> What parameters were used to create the XFS partition in these tests? And,
>> what options were used to mount the file system? Was the kernel 32-bit or
>> 64-bit? Given what I've seen with some of the XFS options (like lazy-count),
>> I am wondering about the options used in these tests.
>>     
>
> The default (no arguments specified) parameters were used to create
> the XFS partitions.  Mount options specified are described in the
> table.  This was a 64-bit OS.
>
> Regards,
> Mark
>
>   
I think it is a good idea to match the raid stripe size and give some 
indication of how many disks are in the array. E.g:

For a 4 disk system with 256K stripe size I used:

 $ mkfs.xfs -d su=256k,sw=2 /dev/mdx

which performed about 2-3 times quicker than the default (I did try sw=4 
as well, but didn't notice any difference compared to sw=4).

regards

Mark