From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda3.sgi.com [192.48.176.15]) by oss.sgi.com (8.14.3/8.14.3/SuSE Linux 0.8) with ESMTP id o9QMWKLb110645 for ; Tue, 26 Oct 2010 17:32:21 -0500 Received: from mailsrv14.zmi.at (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cuda.sgi.com (Spam Firewall) with ESMTP id B2FA41600381 for ; Tue, 26 Oct 2010 15:33:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mailsrv14.zmi.at (mailsrv1.zmi.at [212.69.164.54]) by cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id lUFVJotrOxIjUCcs for ; Tue, 26 Oct 2010 15:33:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mailsrv.i.zmi.at (h081217106033.dyn.cm.kabsi.at [81.217.106.33]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "mailsrv2.i.zmi.at", Issuer "power4u.zmi.at" (not verified)) by mailsrv14.zmi.at (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 1FF5B17C for ; Wed, 27 Oct 2010 00:33:37 +0200 (CEST) Received: from saturn.localnet (saturn.i.zmi.at [10.72.27.2]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mailsrv.i.zmi.at (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 2B7EF401C3D for ; Wed, 27 Oct 2010 00:33:36 +0200 (CEST) From: Michael Monnerie Subject: XFS Performance on NetApp Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2010 00:33:35 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <201010270033.35894@zmi.at> List-Id: XFS Filesystem from SGI List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============3134247249871137003==" Sender: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com Errors-To: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com To: xfs@oss.sgi.com --===============3134247249871137003== Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="nextPart1760448.QiIqxk3psY"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit --nextPart1760448.QiIqxk3psY Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Does anybody have a report how XFS behaves on a NetApp storage with thin=20 provisioning? They have a completely "weird" storage, their WAFL (write=20 anywhere file layout) together with deduplication and other things make=20 me think the best is to not-at-all specify any "performance options" in=20 mkfs/mount, like sunit/swidth or largeio, swalloc, etc. Does someone have information on that? =2D-=20 mit freundlichen Gr=C3=BCssen, Michael Monnerie, Ing. BSc it-management Internet Services http://proteger.at [gesprochen: Prot-e-schee] Tel: 0660 / 415 65 31 ****** Radiointerview zum Thema Spam ****** http://www.it-podcast.at/archiv.html#podcast-100716 // Wir haben im Moment zwei H=C3=A4user zu verkaufen: // http://zmi.at/langegg/ // http://zmi.at/haus2009/ --nextPart1760448.QiIqxk3psY Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.15 (GNU/Linux) iEYEABECAAYFAkzHVz8ACgkQzhSR9xwSCbS7CACgkkFuufq6T9nqCThDuWoTrr/V HWcAnRP8LsibNpPKCH96/5DxWmU5gd+G =KBcz -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --nextPart1760448.QiIqxk3psY-- --===============3134247249871137003== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs --===============3134247249871137003==--