On Wed, 2006-08-30 at 09:38 -0700, Joshua Schmidlkofer wrote:
> On 8/29/06, Ow Mun Heng <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I just re-formatted my partitions and moved things around. Things are
looking up.
Meaning, I am able to achieve good write/read speeds which is where i
was previously. 15-20MB/s on b
On Thu, 31 Aug 2006, Mark Kirkwood wrote:
Mark Kirkwood wrote:
Ow Mun Heng wrote:
I've already updated it to the latest based on the suspend2 version.
$uname -r
2.6.17-suspend2-r4
$eix xfsprogs
Available versions: 2.7.3 2.7.11 2.8.10
Installed: 2.8.10
If not mistaken
On 8/29/06, Ow Mun Heng <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Tue, 2006-08-29 at 18:35 -0700, Richard Fish wrote:
> On 8/29/06, Ow Mun Heng <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > $ mount | grep xfs
> > /dev/hda6 on /home type xfs (rw)
>
> Hmm, I missed this before. "nobarrier" should be showing up here. Try:
On 8/30/06, Mick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Wednesday 30 August 2006 02:35, Richard Fish wrote:
> On 8/29/06, Ow Mun Heng <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > $ mount | grep xfs
> > /dev/hda6 on /home type xfs (rw)
>
> Hmm, I missed this before. "nobarrier" should be showing up here. Try:
>
> mou
nobarrier went into 2.6.17 I believe (kernel related change) and was
discussed on the XFS mailing list.
On Wed, 30 Aug 2006, Mick wrote:
On Wednesday 30 August 2006 02:35, Richard Fish wrote:
On 8/29/06, Ow Mun Heng <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
$ mount | grep xfs
/dev/hda6 on /home type xfs (
On Tue, 2006-08-29 at 18:35 -0700, Richard Fish wrote:
> On 8/29/06, Ow Mun Heng <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > $ mount | grep xfs
> > /dev/hda6 on /home type xfs (rw)
>
> Hmm, I missed this before. "nobarrier" should be showing up here. Try:
>
> mount /home -o remount,nobarrier
>
I did ment
On 8/29/06, Ow Mun Heng <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
$ mount | grep xfs
/dev/hda6 on /home type xfs (rw)
Hmm, I missed this before. "nobarrier" should be showing up here. Try:
mount /home -o remount,nobarrier
-Richard
--
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
Ow Mun Heng wrote:
I've already updated it to the latest based on the suspend2 version.
$uname -r
2.6.17-suspend2-r4
$eix xfsprogs
Available versions: 2.7.3 2.7.11 2.8.10
Installed: 2.8.10
If not mistaken, the issue, (or barriers if not mistaken) was introduced
in the 2.6
On Tue, 2006-08-29 at 10:54 -0700, Richard Fish wrote:
> On 8/29/06, Ow Mun Heng <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > So.. it doesn't give me any clues there. However, doing Reads is OK. I
> > get good performance when eg: copying a file from the XFS partition to
> > another partition/drive.
>
> How abo
You are correct, sir. Read times move at a nice clip - but untar/writes
seem to get cut almost in half. Just an observation - as I do not have
any solid data analysis atm - just a matter of scratching my skull
whilst I listen to what seems to be some serious HD churning.
-Jeff
Richard Fish wrote:
On 8/29/06, Jeff Grant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
These are two articles that indeed led me to believe that XFS was the
way to go - and here, I'm also experiencing some dreadful performance -
tar/untar performance specifically.
Can you define "dreadful"? Are you seeing the same results (fast
r
http://www.debian-administration.org/articles/388
and
http://linuxgazette.net/122/TWDT.html#piszcz
These are two articles that indeed led me to believe that XFS was the
way to go - and here, I'm also experiencing some dreadful performance -
tar/untar performance specifically.
What to do.. .what
On 8/29/06, Ow Mun Heng <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
So.. it doesn't give me any clues there. However, doing Reads is OK. I
get good performance when eg: copying a file from the XFS partition to
another partition/drive.
How about the output of:
lsattr -Ra /home 2>dev/null | grep -v -e "-
There are a number of things you can do to speed up XFS.
#
/dev/sda2 / xfs
logbufs=8,logbsize=262144,biosize=16,noatime,nodiratime 0 1
Try this :)
On Tue, 29 Aug 2006, Mick wrote:
On Tuesday 29 August 2006 10:37, Richard Fish wrote:
fs.xfs.xfss
On Tuesday 29 August 2006 10:37, Richard Fish wrote:
> fs.xfs.xfssyncd_centisecs = 500
Mine is set at 3000 by default, why is yours set at 500?
--
Regards,
Mick
pgpHuZeFz4OYK.pgp
Description: PGP signature
On 8/28/06, Ow Mun Heng <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Has anyone here, who uses XFS fs, experiencing slow filesystem writes?
I'm seeing throughput of like 4-3MB/s instead of like previously
15-20MB/s.
I have read that there was some thing about "barriers" and I've tried
re-mounting the FS w/ "nobarr
On Tue, 2006-08-29 at 18:11 +1200, Mark Kirkwood wrote:
> Ow Mun Heng wrote:
> > Has anyone here, who uses XFS fs, experiencing slow filesystem writes?
> > I'm seeing throughput of like 4-3MB/s instead of like previously
> > 15-20MB/s.
> > I have read that there was some thing about "barriers" and
Ow Mun Heng wrote:
Has anyone here, who uses XFS fs, experiencing slow filesystem writes?
I'm seeing throughput of like 4-3MB/s instead of like previously
15-20MB/s.
I have read that there was some thing about "barriers" and I've tried
re-mounting the FS w/ "nobarriers" but the performance didn
Hello,I just had the same problem. I switched to XFS about two weeks ago, and all I've heard out of my hard drive since then is churning and grinding. Untarring large files is multitudes slower, even a simple emerge --sync takes extra time. Booting was also much slower. I never measured through
Has anyone here, who uses XFS fs, experiencing slow filesystem writes?
I'm seeing throughput of like 4-3MB/s instead of like previously
15-20MB/s.
I have read that there was some thing about "barriers" and I've tried
re-mounting the FS w/ "nobarriers" but the performance didn't improve.
I've alre
20 matches
Mail list logo
