|
Re: tar's default block size & shoe-shinning
2006-06-20 10:47:23
On Tue, 20 Jun 2006 at 2:59pm, Cyrille Bollu wrote
Joshua Baker-LePain <jlb17 AT duke DOT edu> a écrit sur 20/06/2006 14:07:58 :
How much benchmarking/optimization have you done with the array?
Almost none... That's the first time I'm working with such a big
filesystem.
I ran "hdparm -t -T" when I received the server and got a transfer rate of
around 40MB/s from the array. That satisfied me at that time. But now I'm
experiencing a transfer rate of less than half the expected speed. And a
tape drive that's shoe-shinning... (BTW is this still so bad for the
drive? I could not find anything like this in Dell's documentation. They
basically just say "It will be a lot slower").
hdparm is a poor benchmarking tool. bonnie++ is good, as is tiobench, and
they're both quite easy to use. And I still operate on the assumption
that shoe-shining is bad, both for tapes and the drive (due to mechanical
wear).
I was also wondering if I would use a reiserFS filesystem or if a tuned
ext3fs would do the trick.
Reiser scares the living crap out of me *and* isn't supported by RH. I'd
avoid it.
Do you have any hint of what I could do to optimize/benchmark my config?
Could you eventually point me to some interesting readings?
There are ext3 mount options you can play with, as well as options in the
RAID controller. All of that can be non-destructive. There are also some
mke2fs options one can play with.
That's an awfully old point release. Any reason for that?
a too large "to do list" perhaps? ;-)
Yes, going to kernel 2.6 (and the new megaraid_mbox driver!) was also on
my possible-improvement list.
You may also want to search through RH's bugzilla to see if there are any
megaraid and/or ext3 specific bugs you may be hitting.
--
Joshua Baker-LePain
Department of Biomedical Engineering
Duke University
|
|
|
