All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Andrey Rahmatullin <wrar@altlinux.org>
To: Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com>
Cc: "Markus Trippelsdorf" <markus@trippelsdorf.de>,
	"Bruno Prémont" <bonbons@linux-vserver.org>,
	xfs-masters@oss.sgi.com, xfs@oss.sgi.com,
	"Christoph Hellwig" <hch@infradead.org>,
	"Alex Elder" <aelder@sgi.com>,
	"Dave Chinner" <dchinner@redhat.com>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: 2.6.39-rc3, 2.6.39-rc4: XFS lockup - regression since 2.6.38
Date: Fri, 20 May 2011 17:20:18 +0600	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20110520112018.GB3867@belkar.wrar.name> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20110429011929.GA13542@dastard>

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 987 bytes --]

On Fri, Apr 29, 2011 at 11:19:29AM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote:
> > x4 ~ # xfs_info /
> > meta-data=/dev/root              isize=256    agcount=4, agsize=1949824 blks
> >          =                       sectsz=512   attr=2
> > data     =                       bsize=4096   blocks=7799296, imaxpct=25
> >          =                       sunit=128    swidth=128 blks
> > naming   =version 2              bsize=4096   ascii-ci=0
> > log      =internal               bsize=4096   blocks=3808, version=2
> >          =                       sectsz=512   sunit=8 blks, lazy-count=1
> > realtime =none                   extsz=4096   blocks=0, rtextents=0
> OK, so the common elements here appears to be root filesystems
> with small log sizes, which means they are tail pushing all the
> time metadata operations are in progress. 
Does that mean that such filesystems are not optimal in terms of
performance and/or reliability and should have larger log sizes?

-- 
WBR, wRAR

[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 836 bytes --]

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Andrey Rahmatullin <wrar@altlinux.org>
To: Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com>
Cc: "Dave Chinner" <dchinner@redhat.com>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, xfs@oss.sgi.com,
	"Christoph Hellwig" <hch@infradead.org>,
	xfs-masters@oss.sgi.com,
	"Bruno Prémont" <bonbons@linux-vserver.org>,
	"Alex Elder" <aelder@sgi.com>,
	"Markus Trippelsdorf" <markus@trippelsdorf.de>
Subject: Re: 2.6.39-rc3, 2.6.39-rc4: XFS lockup - regression since 2.6.38
Date: Fri, 20 May 2011 17:20:18 +0600	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20110520112018.GB3867@belkar.wrar.name> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20110429011929.GA13542@dastard>


[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 987 bytes --]

On Fri, Apr 29, 2011 at 11:19:29AM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote:
> > x4 ~ # xfs_info /
> > meta-data=/dev/root              isize=256    agcount=4, agsize=1949824 blks
> >          =                       sectsz=512   attr=2
> > data     =                       bsize=4096   blocks=7799296, imaxpct=25
> >          =                       sunit=128    swidth=128 blks
> > naming   =version 2              bsize=4096   ascii-ci=0
> > log      =internal               bsize=4096   blocks=3808, version=2
> >          =                       sectsz=512   sunit=8 blks, lazy-count=1
> > realtime =none                   extsz=4096   blocks=0, rtextents=0
> OK, so the common elements here appears to be root filesystems
> with small log sizes, which means they are tail pushing all the
> time metadata operations are in progress. 
Does that mean that such filesystems are not optimal in terms of
performance and/or reliability and should have larger log sizes?

-- 
WBR, wRAR

[-- Attachment #1.2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 836 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 121 bytes --]

_______________________________________________
xfs mailing list
xfs@oss.sgi.com
http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs

  parent reply	other threads:[~2011-05-20 12:01 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 44+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2011-04-23 20:44 2.6.39-rc3, 2.6.39-rc4: XFS lockup - regression since 2.6.38 Bruno Prémont
2011-04-23 20:44 ` Bruno Prémont
2011-04-27  5:08 ` Dave Chinner
2011-04-27  5:08   ` Dave Chinner
2011-04-27 16:26   ` Bruno Prémont
2011-04-27 16:26     ` Bruno Prémont
2011-04-28 19:45     ` Markus Trippelsdorf
2011-04-28 19:45       ` Markus Trippelsdorf
2011-04-29  1:19       ` Dave Chinner
2011-04-29  1:19         ` Dave Chinner
2011-04-29 15:18         ` Markus Trippelsdorf
2011-04-29 15:18           ` Markus Trippelsdorf
2011-04-29 19:35           ` Bruno Prémont
2011-04-29 19:35             ` Bruno Prémont
2011-04-30 14:18             ` Bruno Prémont
2011-04-30 14:18               ` Bruno Prémont
2011-05-02  6:15               ` Markus Trippelsdorf
2011-05-02  6:15                 ` Markus Trippelsdorf
2011-05-02 12:40                 ` Dave Chinner
2011-05-02 12:40                   ` Dave Chinner
2011-05-04  0:57         ` Jamie Heilman
2011-05-04  0:57           ` Jamie Heilman
2011-05-04 13:25           ` Dave Chinner
2011-05-04 13:25             ` Dave Chinner
2011-05-05  0:21           ` Dave Chinner
2011-05-05  0:21             ` Dave Chinner
2011-05-05  2:26             ` Dave Chinner
2011-05-05  2:26               ` Dave Chinner
2011-05-05 12:21               ` Dave Chinner
2011-05-05 12:21                 ` Dave Chinner
2011-05-05 12:39                 ` Christoph Hellwig
2011-05-05 12:39                   ` Christoph Hellwig
2011-05-06  1:49                   ` Dave Chinner
2011-05-06  1:49                     ` Dave Chinner
2011-05-05 20:35                 ` Bruno Prémont
2011-05-05 20:35                   ` Bruno Prémont
2011-05-09  5:57                   ` Bruno Prémont
2011-05-09  5:57                     ` Bruno Prémont
2011-05-08  5:11                 ` Jamie Heilman
2011-05-08  5:11                   ` Jamie Heilman
2011-05-20 11:20         ` Andrey Rahmatullin [this message]
2011-05-20 11:20           ` Andrey Rahmatullin
2011-05-21  0:14           ` Dave Chinner
2011-05-21  0:14             ` Dave Chinner

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20110520112018.GB3867@belkar.wrar.name \
    --to=wrar@altlinux.org \
    --cc=aelder@sgi.com \
    --cc=bonbons@linux-vserver.org \
    --cc=david@fromorbit.com \
    --cc=dchinner@redhat.com \
    --cc=hch@infradead.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=markus@trippelsdorf.de \
    --cc=xfs-masters@oss.sgi.com \
    --cc=xfs@oss.sgi.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.