xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [patch] Re: Does XFS prevent disk spindown?

To: David Chinner <dgc@xxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [patch] Re: Does XFS prevent disk spindown?
From: Thor Kristoffersen <thorkr@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 09 Apr 2008 23:32:34 +0200
Cc: Timothy Shimmin <tes@xxxxxxx>, xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <20080409041113.GC108924158@xxxxxxx>
References: <m2tzimbvif.fsf@xxxxxxxxxx> <20080401003005.GJ103491721@xxxxxxx> <47F1CF6D.2040103@xxxxxxxxxxx> <m2d4p9o2sc.fsf@xxxxxxxxxx> <m2y77smmdj.fsf@xxxxxxxxxx> <47F9735E.8020900@xxxxxxx> <m2wsn9qub4.fsf@xxxxxxxxxx> <20080407215855.GE108924158@xxxxxxx> <m2skxwriye.fsf@xxxxxxxxxx> <20080409041113.GC108924158@xxxxxxx>
Sender: xfs-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx
User-agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.1 (gnu/linux)
David Chinner <dgc@xxxxxxx> writes:
> On Tue, Apr 08, 2008 at 07:53:13AM +0200, Thor Kristoffersen wrote:
>> David Chinner <dgc@xxxxxxx> writes:
>> >> > What does 'xfs_logprint -t' show in these "idle" states
>> >> > after these writes?
>> >> 
>> >> xfs_logprint produces output like the one shown below, so it does indeed
>> >> look like it's writing to the journal.  But why should it need to keep
>> >> writing to the journal when there have been no updates to any files on 
>> >> that
>> >> partition recently?
>> >
>> > Are you using lazy-count=1? (i.e. output of 'xfs_info <mtpt>', please).
>> 
>> Looks like I am:
>> 
>> meta-data=/dev/sda3              isize=256    agcount=4, agsize=42676171 blks
>>          =                       sectsz=512   attr=2
>> data     =                       bsize=4096   blocks=170704681, imaxpct=25
>>          =                       sunit=0      swidth=0 blks
>> naming   =version 2              bsize=4096  
>> log      =internal               bsize=4096   blocks=32768, version=2
>>          =                       sectsz=512   sunit=0 blks, lazy-count=1
>> realtime =none                   extsz=4096   blocks=0, rtextents=0
>> 
>> Is that what's causing it?  I have never specified any lazy-count option
>> when I created or mounted the filesystem.  I didn't even know it existed.
>
> Introduced in 2.6.22, and recently was made the default mkfs config.
>
> Try the patch below.

Thanks a lot, David!  Your patch worked perfectly.  Also thanks to the
others who helped me track down this issue.

BTW, what are the consequences of setting lazy-count to 0?  Less safety?
Reduced performance?


Thor


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