I don't think this is a bad choice, although the 3.10 may be a bit faster
for many CPU bound processes, even if only for ms at a time. If you like it
better it's a good choice.

i will use xeon e3 1220v2 (without hyper thread), there's a 'dummy'
list of cpu/schedulers improvements?

Other people have mentioned not using two filesystems to prevent thrashing
and head motion, The only thing in root which changes a lot are logs, and
then only when comthing log generating is running. Certainly http, nntp, and
mail servers qualify. Unless you see some reason I missed, joining all the
root and home in one filesystem will probably be a win over having two.

ok i think quotas is nice, what about changing /boot / and /home, to
only one partition? instead of 3 partitions?

I note the lack of raid10, particularly raid10 with -f2 (far two) layout. In
general that is going to be faster than raid1, and equally robust. You ran a
lot of benchmarks, one more would config your choice or give you a better
option.

hum i tested the system in raid10 and it runs slower with far and near
layout, i think that it have many read in non consecutive blocks ,
that make far layout bad
raid1 runs nice without problem and read aren't fast but they are
intensive (many files reads instead of many information in one file)

Then you can play with hardware and software readahead, stride, all the
write{back,thru,etc} options xfs may provide. Frankly, if you want good disk
performance, the most time effective thing you can do is add more drives to
spread the head motion and do more parallel i/o. With only two drives and
raid1 you are limited to the transfer rate of the slowest drive and
sequential seeks. with more spindles you start to do things in parallel, use
the outer part of the drive for faster transfer, etc. What you have has a
low theoretical max which you can beat without tuning using more disk and
raid10.

no problem, a single disk works for the system, raid1 is for security,
maybe a bcache or another ssd+hdd cache could allow a better
performace, but i don't think i will need it
i don't know what's the best xfs parameters / fdisk parameters to
align disk with filesystem, should i add some parameter?

quoted

What more information should i share?

Write size. The will effect your chunk size choices. I don't know what xfs
gives you in control of favoring writes of a given size, ext4 does let you
provide information to the kernel in extended options, which can be useful.
In my experience more so when doing a series of sequential small writes
(more than a chunk total, not huge) than a ton of small scattered writes,
just mentioning things you can evaluate, since you have put a lot of work
into test already.

well write mean size is something near to 4kb or 1kb, with some big
writes (1mb) when using a big commit or something like it in innodb
tables


thanks Bill!
any other idea is wellcome too =)

-- 
Roberto Spadim