Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list linux-xfs); Tue, 17 Jun 2003 06:06:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: from dingdong.cryptoapps.com (postfix@uslink-66.173.43-133.uslink.net [66.173.43.133] (may be forged)) by oss.sgi.com (8.12.9/8.12.9) with SMTP id h5HD5m2x022793 for ; Tue, 17 Jun 2003 06:05:48 -0700 Received: by dingdong.cryptoapps.com (Postfix, from userid 1001) id 095E5FB838; Tue, 17 Jun 2003 08:10:06 -0500 (CDT) Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2003 08:10:06 -0500 From: Chris Wedgwood To: Steve Lord Cc: Andi Kleen , linux-xfs@oss.sgi.com, Chris Mason Subject: Re: [PATCH] Give logbufs a better default Message-ID: <20030617131006.GC3510@dingdong.cryptoapps.com> References: <20030611093525.GA2329@wotan.suse.de> <1055363594.6614.44.camel@jen.americas.sgi.com> <20030611212822.GA8166@wotan.suse.de> <1055369055.6611.95.camel@jen.americas.sgi.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1055369055.6611.95.camel@jen.americas.sgi.com> X-archive-position: 4365 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: linux-xfs-bounce@oss.sgi.com Errors-to: linux-xfs-bounce@oss.sgi.com X-original-sender: cw@f00f.org Precedence: bulk X-list: linux-xfs On Wed, Jun 11, 2003 at 05:04:15PM -0500, Steve Lord wrote: > > 8 is the current maximum (is there a reason for that btw? could it > > be simply raised?) > > It could be. I have a filesystem with an external log where I've increase logbufs to 8 and also the size to 256k. With this I see *much* better performance for somethings like cp -Rl and rm, but not reliably... there are times when the performance is worse. It's not clear how to choose sensible values other than by trial and error. --cw