xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Decrease in ability to handle heavy I/O between CVS 16/3 & 29/3

To: Linux XFS Mailing List <linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Decrease in ability to handle heavy I/O between CVS 16/3 & 29/3
From: Adrian Head <ahead@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 1 Apr 2002 22:20:37 +1000
Sender: owner-linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
First off - I hope everyone had a good Easter break if you follow Easter in 
your part of the world.

The Easter break allowed me to catch up on a bit of testing of XFS & LVM that 
I hadn't had time for over the last couple of weeks  What I found was that 
with a minor modification to a LVM patch the combination of 2.4.18-xfs CVS & 
LVM-1.1rc1 seem more stable now than 5-7 weeks ago with regard to general 
usage including snapshots.  My LVM test script actually completes without 
taking down the box.  Previously I was able to run the LVM test by hand but 
if I used a script the machine would go belly-up.  After quite a few runs of 
the test script - this seems to be no longer the case.  I will be continuing 
to test this under different circumstances in the future to make sure.  

However I have noticed a huge reduction in the ability of 2.4.18-xfs CVS to 
handle very high I/O loads.  Another test I run is using many background `cp` 
processes to copy a 266M directory across a volume.  The XFS CVS of the 
20020316-1356 EST (+10hrs from UTC) can handle without problems 100 
background `cp` processes - the test takes 14+hrs but the machine emerges 
from the test still standing.  Whereas the XFS CVS of the  20020329-1644 EST 
does not survive even 80 background `cp` processes. (40 completes - 60 is 
currently in test)

After reading the mailing list I have seen many posts between the 16th March 
and the 29th March regarding changing the memory handling of XFS.  The 
following links are some of the major ones I found:
http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=linux-xfs&m=101655982111751&w=2
http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=linux-xfs&m=101665141802936&w=2
http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=linux-xfs&m=101734523225131&w=2
How can I help in tracking down which change modified the heavy I/O 
behaviour? and what can I do to help fix it?

What further information do people need/want?

On a positive note it appears that the deleting of large amounts of data is 
much faster with the XFS CVS of the  20020329-1644 EST.  I do not have actual 
times but it suprised me - I went to get a coffee and it was finished when I 
got back - that never happened before.  Thanks for those that improved this 
part of XFS.

An example of the test script:

# ==== High I/O test script ====
#!/bin/sh

cp -fr 01 2

for (( i=80; i!=2; i-- )) ; do
  cp -fr 01 $i &
#  echo $i
done

-- 
Adrian Head

(Public Key available on request.)


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
  • Decrease in ability to handle heavy I/O between CVS 16/3 & 29/3, Adrian Head <=