Justin Piszcz wrote:

Dave's original e-mail:

quoted

# mkfs.xfs -f -l lazy-count=1,version=2,size=128m -i attr=2 -d 
agcount=4 <dev>
# mount -o logbsize=256k <dev> <mtpt>

quoted

And if you don't care about filsystem corruption on power loss:

quoted

# mount -o logbsize=256k,nobarrier <dev> <mtpt>

quoted

Those mkfs values (except for log size) will be hte defaults in the next
release of xfsprogs.

quoted

Cheers,

quoted

Dave.
-- 
Dave Chinner
Principal Engineer
SGI Australian Software Group

---------

I used his mkfs.xfs options verbatim but I use my own mount options:
noatime,nodiratime,logbufs=8,logbsize=26214

Here are the results, the results of 3 bonnie++ averaged together for 
each test:
http://home.comcast.net/~jpiszcz/xfs1/result.html

Thanks Dave, this looks nice--the more optimizations the better!

-----------

I also find it rather pecuilar that in some of my (other) benchmarks 
my RAID 5 is just as fast as RAID 0 for extracting large files 
(uncompressed) files:

RAID 5 (1024k CHUNK)
26.95user 6.72system 0:37.89elapsed 88%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata 
0maxresident)k0inputs+0outputs (6major+526minor)pagefaults 0swaps

Compare with RAID 0 for the same operation:

(as with RAID5, it appears 256k-1024k..2048k possibly) is the sweet spot.

Why does mdadm still use 64k for the default chunk size?

Write performance with small files, I would think. There is some 
information in old posts, but I don't seem to find them as quickly as I 
would like.

And another quick question, would there be any benefit to use (if it 
were possible) a block size of > 4096 bytes with XFS (I assume only 
IA64/similar arch can support it), e.g. x86_64 cannot because the 
page_size is 4096.

[ 8265.407137] XFS: only pagesize (4096) or less will currently work.

-- 
Bill Davidsen [off-list ref]
  "Woe unto the statesman who makes war without a reason that will still
  be valid when the war is over..." Otto von Bismark