xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

re: xfs cpu usage

To: Michal Adamczak <pokryfka@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, <linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: re: xfs cpu usage
From: Greg Freemyer <freemyer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2003 13:00:44 -0500
Organization: Norcross Group
Sender: linux-xfs-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx
I thought this was the very reason people used SCSI in preference to IDE.

i.e. IDE uses the CPU to control seeks, SCSI just tells the controller, and the 
controller interrupts the CPU when the seek is done.

Obviously you could upgrade to SCSI.

Alternatively, the 3ware controllers present the CPU with a SCSI interface, but 
talk to IDE drives on the back-end.

I assume there are other controllers that do this as well.  

I know that some of the Promise controllers imply they do this, but in reality 
they don't reduce CPU load.

Other Promise controllers may do the job right.

FYI: A 2-port 3ware card (IIRC 7000-2) only costs a little over $100 (US) and 
they are supported in the vanilla kernel.

Greg
 >>  hi,
 >>  when coping/deleting files (both small and very large)
 >>  the cpu usage reaches 100% so that it's hardly possible to do anything
 >>  else at the same time

 >>  what could possibly be the reason?

 >>  i use linux 2.5.65 (though same goes for 2.4.20)
 >>  debian sid

 >>  i use the following hdparm settings:
 >>  #hdparm -d1 c1 -u1 -m8 /dev/hda

 >>  which results in 

 >>  #hdparm  /dev/hda
 >>  
 >>  /dev/hda:
 >>  multcount    = 16 (on)
 >>      IO_support   =  1 (32-bit)
 >>      unmaskirq    =  1 (on)
 >>      using_dma    =  1 (on)
 >>      keepsettings =  0 (off)
 >>      readonly     =  0 (off)
 >>      readahead    = 256 (on)
 >>      geometry     = 23989/16/63, sectors = 156301488, start = 0
 >>                   

 >>  -- 
 >>  Michal Adamczak
 >>  pokryfka @ druid.if.uj.edu.pl
 >>  GS dpu C+++ UL+++++ L+++(++++) w--- !tv h*
 >>  I code AND I bathe. (seen on slashdot)


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>