On 05/07/07, Jesper Juhl <[email protected]> wrote:
On 05/07/07, Martin Knoblauch <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> for a customer we are operating a rackful of HP/DL380/G4 boxes that
> have given us some problems with system responsiveness under [I/O
> triggered] system load.
>
> The systems in question have the following HW:
>
> 2x Intel/EM64T CPUs
> 8GB memory
> CCISS Raid controller with 4x72GB SCSI disks as RAID5
> 2x BCM5704 NIC (using tg3)
>
> The distribution is RHEL4. We have tested several kernels including
> the original 2.6.9, 2.6.19.2, 2.6.22-rc7 and 2.6.22-rc7+cfs-v18.
>
> One part of the workload is when several processes try to write 5 GB
> each to the local filesystem (ext2->LVM->CCISS). When this happens, the
> load goes up to 12 and responsiveness goes down. This means from one
> moment to the next things like opening a ssh connection to the host in
> question, or doing "df" take forever (minutes). Especially bad with the
> vendor kernel, better (but not perfect) with 2.6.19 and 2.6.22-rc7.
>
> The load basically comes from the writing processes and up to 12
> "pdflush" threads all being in "D" state.
>
> So, what I would like to understand is how we can maximize the
> responsiveness of the system, while keeping disk throughput at maximum.
>
I'd suspect you can't get both at 100%.
I'd guess you are probably using a 100Hz no-preempt kernel. Have you
tried a 1000Hz + preempt kernel? Sure, you'll get a bit lower
overall throughput, but interactive responsiveness should be better -
if it is, then you could experiment with various combinations of
CONFIG_PREEMPT, CONFIG_PREEMPT_VOLUNTARY, CONFIG_PREEMPT_NONE and
CONFIG_HZ_1000, CONFIG_HZ_300, CONFIG_HZ_250, CONFIG_HZ_100 to see
what gives you the best balance between throughput and interactive
responsiveness (you could also throw CONFIG_PREEMPT_BKL and/or
CONFIG_NO_HZ, but I don't think the impact will be as significant as
with the other options, so to keep things simple I'd leave those out
at first) .
I'd guess that something like CONFIG_PREEMPT_VOLUNTARY + CONFIG_HZ_300
would probably be a good compromise for you, but just to see if
there's any effect at all, start out with CONFIG_PREEMPT +
CONFIG_HZ_1000.
I'm currious, did you ever try playing around with CONFIG_PREEMPT* and
CONFIG_HZ* to see if that had any noticable impact on interactive
performance and stuff like logging into the box via ssh etc...?
--
Jesper Juhl <[email protected]>
Don't top-post http://www.catb.org/~esr/jargon/html/T/top-post.html
Plain text mails only, please http://www.expita.com/nomime.html
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
