On 05/07/2009, at 1:57 AM, Ross Walker wrote:
Barriers are by default are disabled on ext3 mounts... Google it and
you'll see interesting threads in the LKML. Seems there was some
serious performance degradation in using them. A lot of decisions in
Linux are made in favor of performance over da
On Jul 4, 2009, at 14:30, Miles Nordin wrote:
yes, which is why it's worth suspecting knfsd as well. However I
don't think you can sell a Solaris system that performs 1/3 as well on
better hardware without a real test case showing the fast system's
broken.
It should be noted that RAID-0 perfo
> "rw" == Ross Walker writes:
rw> Barriers are by default are disabled on ext3 mounts...
http://lwn.net/Articles/283161/
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=458936
enabled by default on SLES. to enable on other distro:
mount -t ext3 -o barrier=1
(no help if using LVM2)
On Sat, Jul 4, 2009 at 1:38 AM, James Lever wrote:
>
> On 04/07/2009, at 1:49 PM, Ross Walker wrote:
>
>> I ran some benchmarks back when verifying this, but didn't keep them
>> unfortunately.
>>
>> You can google: XFS Barrier LVM OR EVMS and see the threads about this.
>
> Interesting reading. Te
On 04/07/2009, at 1:49 PM, Ross Walker wrote:
I ran some benchmarks back when verifying this, but didn't keep them
unfortunately.
You can google: XFS Barrier LVM OR EVMS and see the threads about
this.
Interesting reading. Testing seems to show that either it's not
relevant or there is
On Fri, Jul 3, 2009 at 9:47 PM, James Lever wrote:
>
> On 04/07/2009, at 10:42 AM, Ross Walker wrote:
>
>> XFS on LVM or EVMS volumes can't do barrier writes due to the lack of
>> barrier support in LVM and EVMS, so it doesn't do a hard cache sync like it
>> would on a raw disk partition which make
On 04/07/2009, at 10:42 AM, Ross Walker wrote:
XFS on LVM or EVMS volumes can't do barrier writes due to the lack
of barrier support in LVM and EVMS, so it doesn't do a hard cache
sync like it would on a raw disk partition which makes the numbers
higher, BUT with battery backed write cache
On Jul 3, 2009, at 8:20 PM, James Lever wrote:
On 03/07/2009, at 10:37 PM, Victor Latushkin wrote:
Slog in ramdisk is analogous to no slog at all and disable zil
(well, it may be actually a bit worse). If you say that your old
system is 5 years old difference in above numbers may be due
