From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S263573AbTFDQox (ORCPT ); Wed, 4 Jun 2003 12:44:53 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S263574AbTFDQox (ORCPT ); Wed, 4 Jun 2003 12:44:53 -0400 Received: from eq11.auctionwatch.com ([66.7.130.106]:34207 "EHLO whitestar.auctionwatch.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S263573AbTFDQov (ORCPT ); Wed, 4 Jun 2003 12:44:51 -0400 Date: Wed, 4 Jun 2003 09:57:51 -0700 From: Petro To: Kevin Jacobs Cc: Nick Piggin , akpm@digeo.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Message-ID: <20030604165751.GA19357@corp.vendio.com> References: <3ED60574.3080308@cyberone.com.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.4i Subject: Re: Ext3 meta-data performance Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, May 30, 2003 at 06:09:02AM -0400, Kevin Jacobs wrote: > On Thu, 29 May 2003, Nick Piggin wrote: > > Kevin Jacobs wrote: > > >[...] > > >Since these rsync backups are done in addition to traditional daily tape > > >backups, we've taken the system out of production use and opened the door > > >for experimentation. So, the next logical step was to try a 2.5 kernel. > > >After some work, I've gotten 2.5.70-mm2 booting and it is _much_ better than > > >the Redhat 2.4 kernels, and the system interactivity is flawless. However, > > >the speed of creating hard-links is still three and a half times slower than > > >with the old 2.2 kernel. It now takes ~14 minutes to create the links, and > > >from what I can tell, the bottlenecks is not the CPU or the disk-throughput. > SCSI ID 1 3ware 7500-8 ATA RAID Controller > * Array Unit 0 Mirror (RAID 1) 40.01 GB OK > + Port 0 WDC WD400BB-00DEA0 40.02 GB OK > + Port 1 WDC WD400BB-00DEA0 40.02 GB OK > * Array Unit 4 Striped with Parity 64K (RAID 5) 555.84 GB OK > + Port 4 IC35L180AVV207-1 185.28 GB OK > + Port 5 IC35L180AVV207-1 185.28 GB OK > + Port 6 IC35L180AVV207-1 185.28 GB OK > + Port 7 IC35L180AVV207-1 185.28 GB OK This isn't on the linux side of things, but since this is a backup server, and you've also got tape backups, why not just get rid of the RAID5 costs and go with a RAID0. (You'd have to have a double fault to take you "offline" and a triple fault to lose the data) -- "On two occasions, I have been asked [by members of Parliament], 'Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?' I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question." -- Charles Babbage