| To: | Nathan Scott <nathans@xxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: Performance question |
| From: | Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxx> |
| Date: | 18 Feb 2004 14:51:48 -0600 |
| Cc: | Joshua Baker-LePain <jlb17@xxxxxxxx>, Linux xfs mailing list <linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx> |
| In-reply-to: | <20040219071800.F244261@wobbly.melbourne.sgi.com> |
| Organization: | Eric Conspiracy Secret Labs |
| References: | <Pine.LNX.4.58.0402181131210.25541@chaos.egr.duke.edu> <20040219071800.F244261@wobbly.melbourne.sgi.com> |
| Sender: | linux-xfs-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx |
> Sounds like Eric's area of expertise. :) Could be another > case of inodes not being reclaimed aggresively enough, and > OOM follows...? Ah... sure... :) Can you watch /proc/slabinfo as this happens, is any particular slab cache growing extremely large? Where is the memory going? Glen suggested that perhaps your directory with all the inodes is terribly fragmented, can you try # xfs_bmap /path/to/big/dir and see how many extents it has... -Eric -- Eric Sandeen [C]XFS for Linux http://oss.sgi.com/projects/xfs sandeen@xxxxxxx SGI, Inc. 651-683-3102 |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: Performance question, Nathan Scott |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: Performance question, Joshua Baker-LePain |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: Performance question, Nathan Scott |
| Next by Thread: | Re: Performance question, Joshua Baker-LePain |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |