xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Logdev size?

To: Steve Lord <lord@xxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: Logdev size?
From: Seth Mos <knuffie@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2001 22:15:13 +0200 (CEST)
Cc: Andrew Klaassen <ak@xxxxxxx>, linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <200107261643.f6QGhCu16902@jen.americas.sgi.com>
Sender: owner-linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
On Thu, 26 Jul 2001, Steve Lord wrote:

> 
> > > Shouldn't be.  How big is the partition you're putting it on?
> > 
> > A little over a terabyte.
> > 
> > One more logdev optimization question: does it make a big
> > difference to overall filesystem performance whether the logdev
> > is on a fast disk or a slow disk?
> > 
> > Andrew Klaassen
> 
> I made a log bigger than this just now. The important thing about the
> log device is a good transaction rate - ops per second matters, data
> rate does not really.

I have already made logs larger then this on a 30GB partition so it should
be possible unless you are running in to some weird kfs issues. There was
one problem on a terabyte setup but those were inode problems.

A 15K RPM Cheetah or a solid state disk was probably the best after much
discussion :-)

So I'd say, yes, the faster disk. The raid array can probably work out the
throughput problems using many disks.

Cheers
Seth


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>