| |||||||||||||
XFS: the filesystem of the future?XFS: the filesystem of the future?Posted Jan 21, 2012 22:20 UTC (Sat) by csamuel (✭ supporter ✭, #2624)In reply to: XFS: the filesystem of the future? by hmh Parent article: XFS: the filesystem of the future? Maybe I'm misunderstanding, but I always thought you would want as many IOPS as possible from your storage system. Otherwise you're going to bottleneck horribly on some codes (yes badly written Java bioinfomatics codes with your 1 byte synchronous I/O's, I'm looking at you).
(Log in to post comments)
XFS: the filesystem of the future? Posted Jan 21, 2012 23:57 UTC (Sat) by dlang (✭ supporter ✭, #313) [Link]
some software is limited by iops, other software is limited by throughput. you can's say that one is all that matters.
XFS: the filesystem of the future? Posted Jan 22, 2012 10:56 UTC (Sun) by ttonino (subscriber, #4073) [Link]
I think the 'IOPS' in the above graphs are the result of benchmarking. So from 2 to 4 threads, the ext4 benchmark result goes up a little, but the number of IO's hitting the disks explodes tenfold.
Which means that ext4 starts to produce inefficient I/O patterns with multiple threads, while XFS is better at combining the I/O's.
Compare to the CPU load while running a disk benchmark; you want that to be as low as possible, compared to throughput.
|
|||||||||||||