[Top] [All Lists]

Re: stable xfs

To: Linux XFS <linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: stable xfs
From: pg_xfs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Peter Grandi)
Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2006 18:47:38 +0100
In-reply-to: <1153404502.2768.50.camel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <1153150223.4532.24.camel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <17595.47312.720883.451573@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <1153262166.2669.267.camel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <17597.27469.834961.186850@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <1153272044.2669.282.camel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <17598.2129.999932.67127@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <1153314670.2691.14.camel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20060720061527.GB18135@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <1153404502.2768.50.camel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: xfs-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx
>>> On Thu, 20 Jul 2006 10:08:22 -0400, Ming Zhang
>>> <mingz@xxxxxxxxxxx> said:

[ ... ]

mingz> hope i never need to run repair,

A ''strategic'' attitude :-).

mingz> but i do need to defrag from time to time.

As to defrag, I reckon that defrag-in-place is a very bad idea,
but I have to admit that contrary evidence exists, and I was
rather surprised to read this:


   «> How many people defrag their filesystems using xfs_fsr
    > /dev/PARTITION if their fragmentation is > 50% etc?  Does
    > anyone regularly defrag their production filesystems or
    > just defrag their filesystems on a regular basis?

    We have several hundred production filesystems defragmented
    every night.»

Even so I think that defragment-by-copy is a much better option.

mingz> [ ... ] we mainly handle large media files like 20-50GB.
mingz> [ ....] hope this does not hold true for a 15x750GB SATA
mingz> raid5. ;)
mingz> [ ... ] say XFS can make use of parallel storage by using
mingz> multiple allocation groups. but XFS need to be built over
mingz> one block device. so if i have 4 smaller raid, i have to
mingz> use LVM to glue them before i create XFS over it right?

Well, I'll just hint that I cannot find euphemisms suitable for
expressing what I think of this setup :-).

mingz> but then u said XFS over LVM or N MD is not good?

It was me saying that [euphemism alert!] I would not recommend a
setup like that without understanding very well the consequences.

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