| To: | james.foris@xxxxxxxxxx |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: XFS performance issues: O_DIRECT and Linux 2.6.6+ |
| From: | Steve Lord <lord@xxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Tue, 14 Sep 2004 10:15:28 -0500 |
| Cc: | Nathan Scott <nathans@xxxxxxx>, linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| In-reply-to: | <414706FA.1040202@xxxxxxxxxx> |
| References: | <411A8410.2030000@xxxxxxxxxx> <20040910041106.GA14336@frodo> <4144B19A.2020407@xxxxxxxxxx> <4145D141.1040907@xxxxxxxxxx> <20040914095914.A4118499@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <414706FA.1040202@xxxxxxxxxx> |
| Sender: | linux-xfs-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| User-agent: | Mozilla Thunderbird 0.7.1 (X11/20040626) |
James Foris wrote: 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) ?http://kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/v2.6/snapshots/old/patch-2.6.5-bk1.logYup... 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 externaljournal suffer much worse than a simple file system with an internal journal?Do these questions suggest anyplace else to look ? Cache invalidation before and after O_DIRECT seems like a good starting point. The raid0 external journal thing is probably a separate issue. Steve |
| Previous by Date: | Re: XFS performance issues: O_DIRECT and Linux 2.6.6+, James Foris |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: Lost files on long running systems, Eric Sandeen |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: XFS performance issues: O_DIRECT and Linux 2.6.6+, James Foris |
| Next by Thread: | Re: XFS performance issues: O_DIRECT and Linux 2.6.6+, James Foris |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |