--- Fengguang Wu <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 28, 2007 at 08:53:07AM -0700, Martin Knoblauch wrote:
> [...]
> > The basic setup is a dual x86_64 box with 8 GB of memory. The
> DL380
> > has a HW RAID5, made from 4x72GB disks and about 100 MB write
> cache.
> > The performance of the block device with O_DIRECT is about 90
> MB/sec.
> >
> > The problematic behaviour comes when we are moving large files
> through
> > the system. The file usage in this case is mostly "use once" or
> > streaming. As soon as the amount of file data is larger than 7.5
> GB, we
> > see occasional unresponsiveness of the system (e.g. no more ssh
> > connections into the box) of more than 1 or 2 minutes (!) duration
> > (kernels up to 2.6.19). Load goes up, mainly due to pdflush threads
> and
> > some other poor guys being in "D" state.
> [...]
> > Just by chance I found out that doing all I/O inc sync-mode does
> > prevent the load from going up. Of course, I/O throughput is not
> > stellar (but not much worse than the non-O_DIRECT case). But the
> > responsiveness seem OK. Maybe a solution, as this can be controlled
> via
> > mount (would be great for O_DIRECT :-).
> >
> > In general 2.6.22 seems to bee better that 2.6.19, but this is
> highly
> > subjective :-( I am using the following setting in /proc. They seem
> to
> > provide the smoothest responsiveness:
> >
> > vm.dirty_background_ratio = 1
> > vm.dirty_ratio = 1
> > vm.swappiness = 1
> > vm.vfs_cache_pressure = 1
>
> You are apparently running into the sluggish kupdate-style writeback
> problem with large files: huge amount of dirty pages are getting
> accumulated and flushed to the disk all at once when dirty background
> ratio is reached. The current -mm tree has some fixes for it, and
> there are some more in my tree. Martin, I'll send you the patch if
> you'd like to try it out.
>
Hi Fengguang,
Yeah, that pretty much describes the situation we end up. Although
"sluggish" is much to friendly if we hit the situation :-)
Yes, I am very interested to check out your patch. I saw your
postings on LKML already and was already curious. Any chance you have
something agains 2.6.22-stable? I have reasons not to move to -23 or
-mm.
> > Another thing I saw during my tests is that when writing to NFS,
> the
> > "dirty" or "nr_dirty" numbers are always 0. Is this a conceptual
> thing,
> > or a bug?
>
> What are the nr_unstable numbers?
>
Ahh. Yes, they go up to 80-90k pages. Comparable to the nr_dirty
numbers for the disk case. Good to know.
For NFS, the nr_writeback numbers seem surprisingly high. They also go
to 80-90k (pages ?). In the disk case they rarely go over 12k.
Cheers
Martin
> Fengguang
>
>
------------------------------------------------------
Martin Knoblauch
email: k n o b i AT knobisoft DOT de
www: http://www.knobisoft.de
-
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]
