|To:||Nathan Scott <nathans@xxxxxxx>|
|Subject:||Re: XFS performance issues: O_DIRECT and Linux 2.6.6+|
|From:||James Foris <james.foris@xxxxxxxxxx>|
|Date:||Tue, 14 Sep 2004 09:58:02 -0500|
|References:||<411A8410.2030000@xxxxxxxxxx> <20040910041106.GA14336@frodo> <4144B19A.2020407@xxxxxxxxxx> <4145D141.1040907@xxxxxxxxxx> <20040914095914.A4118499@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>|
|User-agent:||Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.7) Gecko/20040624|
Nathan Scott wrote:
Hi James, On Mon, Sep 13, 2004 at 11:56:33AM -0500, James Foris wrote:More correctly, it happened between 2.6.5 and 2.6.5-bk1 So..... something in the 2.6.5-bk1 patchset caused the change. Any suggestions where to begin looking (other than fs/direct_io.x) ?
Yup... a bunch more. "Major surgery against the pagecache, radix-tree and writeback code" The interesting question is; why do XFS and REISER suffer under O_DIRECT when other file systems improve? And why does s/w RAID0 with an external journal suffer much worse than a simple file system with an internal journal? Do these questions suggest anyplace else to look ? Jim Foris
search for "direct" -- looks like -bk1 includes all the changes I was refering to earlier (and a bunch more) :( So, the needle is somewhere in that haystack... cheers.
|<Prev in Thread]||Current Thread||[Next in Thread>|
|Previous by Date:||Re: aio (maybe XFS) bug?, Jesse Barnes|
|Next by Date:||Re: XFS performance issues: O_DIRECT and Linux 2.6.6+, Steve Lord|
|Previous by Thread:||Re: XFS performance issues: O_DIRECT and Linux 2.6.6+, Nathan Scott|
|Next by Thread:||Re: XFS performance issues: O_DIRECT and Linux 2.6.6+, Steve Lord|
|Indexes:||[Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists]|