From: pg_xf2@xf2.for.sabi.co.UK (Peter Grandi)
To: Linux fs XFS <xfs@oss.sgi.com>
Subject: Re: Bad performance with XFS + 2.6.38 / 2.6.39
Date: Mon, 2 Jan 2012 18:02:50 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20225.61770.489211.356415@tree.ty.sabi.co.UK> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20225.54924.482210.587313@tree.ty.sabi.co.UK>
>>> The system seems more in I/O wait. Older
>>> kernels (2.6.32.xx and 2.6.26.xx) gives better results.
> [ ... ]
>> When I go back to older kernels, the load go down. With newer
>> kernel, all is working well too, but load (as reported by
>> uptime) is higher.
> [ ... ]
>>> birnie:~/TRACE# uptime
>>> 11:48:34 up 17:18, 3 users, load average: 0.04, 0.18, 0.23
>>> penderyn:~/TRACE# uptime
>>> 11:48:30 up 23 min, 3 users, load average: 4.03, 3.82, 3.21
> [ ... ]
> But 'uptime' reports the load average, which is (roughly)
> processes actually running on the CPU. If the load average is
> higher, that usually means that the file system is running
> better, not worse. It looks as if you are not clear whether you
> have a regression or an improvement.
Perhaps it would be useful to see the output of something like
'iostat -d -x 10' and 'vmstat 10' to see if the load average is
higher because of processes waiting less and running more or
whether it is processes running in 'iowait'. It can help also
using 'htop' with an '.htoprc' like this:
--------------------------------------------------------------
fields=0 48 2 17 38 39 13 14 46 62 63 1
sort_key=63
sort_direction=1
hide_threads=0
hide_kernel_threads=0
hide_userland_threads=0
shadow_other_users=1
highlight_base_name=1
highlight_megabytes=1
highlight_threads=0
tree_view=0
header_margin=0
detailed_cpu_time=1
color_scheme=2
delay=15
left_meters=Memory AllCPUs
left_meter_modes=1 1
right_meters=Swap AllCPUs
right_meter_modes=1 2
--------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
xfs mailing list
xfs@oss.sgi.com
http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2012-01-02 18:02 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 20+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2011-12-11 12:45 Bad performance with XFS + 2.6.38 / 2.6.39 Xupeng Yun
2011-12-11 23:39 ` Dave Chinner
2011-12-12 0:40 ` Xupeng Yun
2011-12-12 1:00 ` Dave Chinner
2011-12-12 2:00 ` Xupeng Yun
2011-12-12 13:57 ` Christoph Hellwig
2011-12-21 9:08 ` Yann Dupont
2011-12-21 15:10 ` Stan Hoeppner
2011-12-21 17:56 ` Yann Dupont
2011-12-21 22:26 ` Dave Chinner
2011-12-22 9:23 ` Yann Dupont
2011-12-22 11:02 ` Yann Dupont
2012-01-02 10:06 ` Yann Dupont
2012-01-02 16:08 ` Peter Grandi
2012-01-02 18:02 ` Peter Grandi [this message]
2012-01-04 10:54 ` Yann Dupont
2012-01-02 20:35 ` Dave Chinner
2012-01-03 8:20 ` Yann Dupont
2012-01-04 12:33 ` Christoph Hellwig
2012-01-04 13:06 ` Yann Dupont
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=20225.61770.489211.356415@tree.ty.sabi.co.UK \
--to=pg_xf2@xf2.for.sabi.co.uk \
--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.