We upgraded our 8CPU/8GB Dell to 2.4.16 w/XFS last week and it works
*much* better than previous 2.4 w/XFS kernels. No, hangs, crashes or VM
weirdness, even under heavy loads.
Thanks,
Jason Allen
Fermilab
On Thu, 2001-12-13 at 09:14, Steve Lord wrote:
> On Tue, 2001-11-13 at 09:54, Jim Eshleman wrote:
> > > FWIW me too, on an 8-way 8.5GB (64GB HIGHMEM enabled) IBM Netfinity
> > > x370 (8500R) which functions as a production mail server. I currently
> > > run 2.4.9 with XFS and it stays up for about a week under heavy load.
> > > 2.4.13 lasted about 4 hours under light load until all memory was
> > > consumed by cache then it became unresponsive.
> > >
> > > 2.4.13 on a 2-way 1GB (64GB HIGHMEM enabled) Netfinity x350 test box
> > > with the same kernel config and XFS works fine even under stress, so
> > > perhaps our problem is similar to the discussion on l-k "Google's mm
> > > problems"...
> >
> >
> > Update: I'm unable to make 2.4.14 fail on the test box (running
> > Cerberus, bonnie++ against two XFS volumes, and LTP simultaneously) but
> > it melts-down just as 2.4.13 does on the big production box. A short
> > time after all memory is eaten by file cache, and under light load, the
> > machine becomes unresponsive. It took about five minutes to login at
> > the console. No error messages on the console or in syslog. Here's
> > some info, it's obvious in the vmstat output where the melt-down occurs:
> >
> > kernel config: http://www.lehigh.edu/~jce0/2.4.14-config
> > bootup messages: http://www.lehigh.edu/~jce0/2.4.14-messages
> > vmstat 60 output: http://www.lehigh.edu/~jce0/2.4.14-vmstat
> > ver_linux output: http://www.lehigh.edu/~jce0/ver_linux.out
> >
> > This is linus 2.4.14 patched with linux-2.4.14-xfs-2001-11-06.patch
> > and LVM 0.9.1_beta6, compiled with egcs-2.91.66. It's a RH 7.1 system.
> >
> > I know Andrea and Marcelo? were testing and fixing some HIGHMEM
> > things. Were there any patches and did they make it into the Linus tree?
> >
> > Any assistance greatly appreciated.
> >
> > Jim
> >
>
> Going through my old email - I think I just fixed this - there was a bug
> in the delayed allocation handling in XFS which caused a memory leak
> due to a buffer_head reference count leak. The latest cvs tree (2.4.16
> based) has the fix in it.
>
> This bug was introduced around the time the new VM showed up in 2.4.10.
>
> Steve
>
> --
>
> Steve Lord voice: +1-651-683-3511
> Principal Engineer, Filesystem Software email: lord@xxxxxxx
|