[Gluster-users] Optimal XFS formatting?

[Sabuj Pattanayek]

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 minutes or hours with EXT3/4
for large fs's.

On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 9:57 AM, Gerald Brandt <gbr at majentis.com> 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
>