[Gluster-users] Optimal XFS formatting?

[Robert Krig]

Oh wait, I misread your previous post. If I understand correctly, the
actual files that will be read are actually multi-gigabyte VM images.

I wonder how well XFS would perform in such a case, since I guess it
wouldn't directly have to do a ton of directory lookups and such, but
instead seek inside a continous file.


On 10/20/2011 04:57 PM, Gerald Brandt wrote:
> Thanks for the ext4 comments.  My issues with ext4 (and 3) are the long fsck times.  In case of a reboot, w need to be up, and not waiting hours for 6 TB to fsck.
>
> Gerald
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Robert Krig" <robert at bitcaster.de>
>> To: gluster-users at 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
>> 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 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 size=64m
>>>
>>> (notes from
>>> http://everything2.com/title/Filesystem+performance+tweaking+with+XFS+on+Linux)
>>>
>>> but realized that it doesn't seem to effect performance for me. You
>>> should definitely try mounting with this :
>>>
>>> mount -t xfs -o rw,noatime,nodiratime,logbufs=8
>>>
>>> HTH,
>>> Sabuj
>>>
>>> On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 8:18 AM, Gerald Brandt <gbr at majentis.com>
>>> 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 reads and writes).  The other will be running file
>>>> servers, etc).
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> Gerald
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Gluster-users mailing list
>>>> Gluster-users at gluster.org
>>>> http://gluster.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gluster-users
>>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Gluster-users mailing list
>>> Gluster-users at gluster.org
>>> http://gluster.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gluster-users
>> _______________________________________________
>> Gluster-users mailing list
>> Gluster-users at gluster.org
>> http://gluster.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gluster-users
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Gluster-users mailing list
> Gluster-users at gluster.org
> http://gluster.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gluster-users