Jeffrey,
it would be interesting to see your zpool layout info as well.
It can significantly influence the results obtained in the benchmarks.
On 8/30/07, Jeffrey W. Baker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I have a lot of people whispering zfs in my virtual ear these days,
and at the same time I have
On 8/29/07, Jeffrey W. Baker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I have a lot of people whispering zfs in my virtual ear these days,
and at the same time I have an irrational attachment to xfs based
entirely on its lack of the 32000 subdirectory limit. I'm not afraid of
ext4's newness, since really a
I have a lot of people whispering zfs in my virtual ear these days,
and at the same time I have an irrational attachment to xfs based
entirely on its lack of the 32000 subdirectory limit. I'm not afraid of
ext4's newness, since really a lot of that stuff has been in Lustre for
years. So
On Thu, 2007-08-30 at 08:37 -0500, Jose R. Santos wrote:
On Wed, 29 Aug 2007 23:16:51 -0700
Jeffrey W. Baker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
http://tastic.brillig.org/~jwb/zfs-xfs-ext4.html
FFSB:
Could you send the patch to fix FFSB Solaris build? I should probably
update the Sourceforge
Jeffrey W. Baker wrote:
On Thu, 2007-08-30 at 13:57 -0500, Eric Sandeen wrote:
barrier seems to hurt badly on xfs, too. Note: barrier is off by
default on ext[34], so if you want apples to apples there, you need to
change one or the other filesystem's mount options. If your write cache
is
On Thu, 30 Aug 2007 11:52:10 -0700
Jeffrey W. Baker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 2007-08-30 at 08:37 -0500, Jose R. Santos wrote:
On Wed, 29 Aug 2007 23:16:51 -0700
Jeffrey W. Baker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
http://tastic.brillig.org/~jwb/zfs-xfs-ext4.html
FFSB:
Could you
[culled zfs-discuss from CC, since its subscriber-only]
On Thu, 2007-08-30 at 14:20 +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
On Thu, Aug 30, 2007 at 05:07:46PM +1000, Nathan Scott wrote:
To improve metadata performance, you have many options with XFS
(which
ones are useful depends on the type of
