Re: [Gluster-users] Optimal XFS formatting?

2012-03-30 Thread Sabuj Pattanayek
> mount -t xfs -o rw,noatime,nodiratime,logbufs=8 nodiratime is redundant, noatime will do both. ___ Gluster-users mailing list Gluster-users@gluster.org http://gluster.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gluster-users

Re: [Gluster-users] Optimal XFS formatting?

2011-10-20 Thread Harshavardhana
Basic thumb rule RAID 5 , 64k stripe size, use the following. If you have larger files go further. # xfs, 5 disks, 64K stripe, units in 512-byte sectors mkfs -txfs -d sunit=$((64*2)) -d swidth=$((5*64*2)) Use for better memory alignment with Scheduler echo "16" > /proc/sys/vm/page-cluster - a

Re: [Gluster-users] Optimal XFS formatting?

2011-10-20 Thread Papp Tamas
On 10/20/2011 03:18 PM, Gerald Brandt wrote: Hi, Are there any 'optimal' settings for XFS formatting under GlusterFS? The storage will be used for Virtual Disk storage, virtual disk size from 8GB to 100 GB in size. One of the VM's (separate gluster volume) will be running MSSQL server (4K r

Re: [Gluster-users] Optimal XFS formatting?

2011-10-20 Thread Sabuj Pattanayek
> The issues with both random-access performance and fsck times vary a lot > according to *exactly* which version of each you're using.  I'm in the same Yup, our tests recently were done directly to XFS using bonnie, iozone, fio, and tiobench on centos6, which is not using the most bleeding edge v

Re: [Gluster-users] Optimal XFS formatting?

2011-10-20 Thread Jeff Darcy
On 10/20/2011 11:11 AM, Sabuj Pattanayek wrote: > IIRC XFS also has long fsck times. I don't know of any fs's which > don't, but I guess you've seen different behavior with respect to ext4 > vs xfs on that issue. One thing I like about XFS is the short mkfs > time, on the order of a few seconds vs

Re: [Gluster-users] Optimal XFS formatting?

2011-10-20 Thread Sabuj Pattanayek
ginal Message - >> From: "Robert Krig" >> To: gluster-users@gluster.org >> Sent: Thursday, October 20, 2011 8:53:50 AM >> Subject: Re: [Gluster-users] Optimal XFS formatting? >> >> >> Try using ext4 if you can. Small file read performance will be MUCH

Re: [Gluster-users] Optimal XFS formatting?

2011-10-20 Thread Robert Krig
riginal Message - >> From: "Robert Krig" >> To: gluster-users@gluster.org >> Sent: Thursday, October 20, 2011 8:53:50 AM >> Subject: Re: [Gluster-users] Optimal XFS formatting? >> >> >> Try using ext4 if you can. Small file read performance will be

Re: [Gluster-users] Optimal XFS formatting?

2011-10-20 Thread Gerald Brandt
tober 20, 2011 8:53:50 AM > Subject: Re: [Gluster-users] Optimal XFS formatting? > > > Try using ext4 if you can. Small file read performance will be MUCH > better than xfs. > On the other hand, you might wanna run some benchmark tests which > resemble your workload, to c

Re: [Gluster-users] Optimal XFS formatting?

2011-10-20 Thread Robert Krig
Try using ext4 if you can. Small file read performance will be MUCH better than xfs. On the other hand, you might wanna run some benchmark tests which resemble your workload, to compare xfs vs ext4 both with and without glusterfs. On 10/20/2011 03:36 PM, Sabuj Pattanayek wrote: > Hi, > > I've

Re: [Gluster-users] Optimal XFS formatting?

2011-10-20 Thread Sabuj Pattanayek
Hi, I've seen that EXT4 has better random I/O performance than XFS, especially on small reads and writes. For large sequential reads and writes XFS is a little bit better. For really large sequential reads and write EXT4 and XFS are about the same. I used to format XFS using this: mkfs.xfs -l siz

[Gluster-users] Optimal XFS formatting?

2011-10-20 Thread Gerald Brandt
Hi, Are there any 'optimal' settings for XFS formatting under GlusterFS? The storage will be used for Virtual Disk storage, virtual disk size from 8GB to 100 GB in size. One of the VM's (separate gluster volume) will be running MSSQL server (4K reads and writes). The other will be running fi