From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda1.sgi.com [192.48.157.11]) by oss.sgi.com (8.14.3/8.14.3/SuSE Linux 0.8) with ESMTP id pBL9BFeL248429 for ; Wed, 21 Dec 2011 03:11:15 -0600 Received: from smtp-tls.univ-nantes.fr (smtp-tls1.univ-nantes.fr [193.52.101.145]) by cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id XOcFSnZ4Ot8nUy5P for ; Wed, 21 Dec 2011 01:11:12 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (debian [127.0.0.1]) by smtp-tls.univ-nantes.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 388EB94DB4 for ; Wed, 21 Dec 2011 10:11:11 +0100 (CET) Received: from smtp-tls.univ-nantes.fr ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (smtp-tls1.d101.univ-nantes.fr [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id Q9TVtUguLF59 for ; Wed, 21 Dec 2011 10:11:11 +0100 (CET) Received: from [172.20.13.9] (tomintoul.cri.univ-nantes.prive [172.20.13.9]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp-tls.univ-nantes.fr (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 1EF0594DB3 for ; Wed, 21 Dec 2011 10:11:11 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <4EF1A224.2070508@univ-nantes.fr> Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2011 10:08:52 +0100 From: Yann Dupont MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: Bad performance with XFS + 2.6.38 / 2.6.39 References: <20111211233929.GI14273@dastard> <20111212010053.GM14273@dastard> In-Reply-To: List-Id: XFS Filesystem from SGI List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"; Format="flowed" Sender: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com Errors-To: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com To: xfs@oss.sgi.com Le 12/12/2011 03:00, Xupeng Yun a =E9crit : > > > On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 09:00, Dave Chinner > wrote: > > Oh, of course, now I remember what the problem is - it's a locking > issue that was fixed in 3.0.11, 3.1.5 and 3.2-rc1. > > > Got it, thanks. > > -- > Xupeng Yun > http://about.me/xupeng > > > _______________________________________________ > xfs mailing list > xfs@oss.sgi.com > http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs I'm seeing more or less the same here. Generally speaking XFS code in recent kernels seems to decrease CPU = usage and be faster, which is a very good thing (good works, guy). But... On two particular server, with recent kernels, I experience a much = higher load than expected, but it's very hard to tell what's wrong. The = system seems more in I/O wait. Older kernels (2.6.32.xx and 2.6.26.xx) = gives better results. Following this thread, I thought I have the same problems, but it's = probably not the case, as I have tested 2.6.38.xx, 3.0.13, 3.1.5 with = same results. Thoses servers are mail (dovecot) servers, with lots of simultaneous = imap clients (5000+) an lots of simultaneous message delivery. These are linux-vservers, on top of LVM volumes. The storage is SAN with = 15k RPM SAS drives (and battery backup). I know barriers were disabled in older kernels, so with recents kernels, = XFS volumes were mounted with nobarrier. As those servers are critical for us, I can't really test, hardly give = you more precise numbers, and I don't know how to accurately reproduce = this platform to test what's wrong. I know this is NOT a precise bug = report and it won't help much. All I can say IS : - read operations seems no slower with recent kernels, backups take = approximatively the same time ; - I'd say (but I have no proof) that delivery of new mails takes more = time and is more synchronous than before, like nobarrier have no effect. Does this ring a bell to some of you ? Thanks, -- = Yann Dupont - Service IRTS, DSI Universit=E9 de Nantes Tel : 02.53.48.49.20 - Mail/Jabber : Yann.Dupont@univ-nantes.fr _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs