From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S262306AbTJGNAl (ORCPT ); Tue, 7 Oct 2003 09:00:41 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S262364AbTJGNAl (ORCPT ); Tue, 7 Oct 2003 09:00:41 -0400 Received: from fluent2.pyramid.net ([206.100.220.213]:33155 "EHLO fluent2.pyramid.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S262306AbTJGNAj (ORCPT ); Tue, 7 Oct 2003 09:00:39 -0400 X-Not-Legal-Opinion: IANAL I am not a lawyer X-For-Entertainment-Purposes-Only: True X-message-flag: Please update my contact to send plain-text mail only. Message-Id: <5.2.1.1.0.20031007054856.019687a8@fluent2.pyramid.net> X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.1 Date: Tue, 07 Oct 2003 05:58:31 -0700 To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org From: Stephen Satchell Subject: Profiling disk usage on selected branches of a file system In-Reply-To: <20031007130551.36899cd9.MalteSch@gmx.de> References: <200310070631.30972.MalteSch@gmx.de> <200310061529.56959.domen@coderock.org> <200310070144.47822.domen@coderock.org> <200310070631.30972.MalteSch@gmx.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org I have a number of servers that are disk-bound, and I'm trying to convince the boss to split out the single disk drive to separate disk drives to increase I/O throughput. I've been using VMSTAT to show just how disk-bound we are, but I can't get any traction toward using multiple drives until I can show a clear, positive, and immediate benefit. Searching the archives, I didn't see discussion of methods of monitoring separate parts of a file system, other than building separate partitions and using /proc/partitions to measure what happens there. This isn't an option. (There is some political inertia here, as well as a heavy dose of NIH.) Any help welcome. My hypothesis: we need three separate drives, one for OS/code/swap/logs, one for /home (Web pages, scripts, and user data), and one devoted to MySQL/PostgreSQL. The "right" way to do the job would be to have the databases on a completely separate computer, but that's out because of proprietary-software issues. You can see the Catch-22. Put together a single server to try the concept? "Please, you must be joking, Our servers are working just fine!" grumble grumble NIH grumble grumble Satch