Steve Lord wrote:
> On Fri, 2002-04-26 at 10:49, Paul Schutte wrote:
> > I know that it grows with the size, but the rate is much too slow.
> > If you create a 2Gb filesystem, you will have a 1200b log.
> > If you create a 64Gb filesystem, you still have the same 1200b log.
> > (That was still the case when a have set up my mailserver a month
> > ago).
> > If you have 80 clients logging in on a 8Gb partition as in his case,
> > you can be sure to have your performance limited by your
> > 1200b log.
> > 1200b is good for a workstation, not for a high performance server.
> > How was he suppose to know that.
> > The size of the filesystem does not matter as much as the amount
> > of I/O that you expect, as Steve pointed out.
> > Larger filesystems obviously have potential for more I/O.
> > Maybe I put this a bit harsh, but I am trying to defend XFS's honour.
> > All the people that I encountered that said XFS's performace sucks,
> > used the default log size.
> > After corrrecting their mistake, they were impressed by XFS.
> > I bet that we have lost a lot of people because of a too small
> > log size.
> > Paul
> There is a new batch of mkfs changes coming down the pipe, when we merge
> this over I will play with the default mkfs sizes. And if someone can
> make xfs_growfs work on the log there is a case of virtual beer in it
> for them ;-) That is the ultimate solution here.
> Steve Lord voice: +1-651-683-3511
> Principal Engineer, Filesystem Software email: lord@xxxxxxx
I do not know what is best.
The quality of the product or the quality of service/people.
Thanx GUYS you are the best.