| To: | lachlan@xxxxxxx |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: [PATCH] Increase the default size of the reserved blocks pool |
| From: | Mark Goodwin <markgw@xxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Tue, 30 Sep 2008 13:26:17 +1000 |
| Cc: | xfs-dev <xfs-dev@xxxxxxx>, xfs-oss <xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx> |
| In-reply-to: | <48E097B5.3010906@xxxxxxx> |
| Organization: | SGI Engineering |
| References: | <48E097B5.3010906@xxxxxxx> |
| Reply-to: | markgw@xxxxxxx |
| User-agent: | Thunderbird 2.0.0.17 (Windows/20080914) |
Lachlan McIlroy wrote: The current default size of the reserved blocks pool is easy to deplete with certain workloads, in particular workloads that do lots of concurrent delayed allocation extent conversions. If enough transactions are running in parallel and the entire pool is consumed then subsequent calls to xfs_trans_reserve() will fail with ENOSPC. Also add a rate limited warning so we know if this starts happening again. Should we also change the semantics of the XFS_SET_RESBLKS ioctl so that the passed in value is the minimum required by the caller, i.e. silently succeed if the current value is more than that? Cheers -- Mark |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | [PATCH] Clean up dquot pincount code., Peter Leckie |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: [PATCH] Increase the default size of the reserved blocks pool, Dave Chinner |
| Previous by Thread: | [PATCH] Increase the default size of the reserved blocks pool, Lachlan McIlroy |
| Next by Thread: | Re: [PATCH] Increase the default size of the reserved blocks pool, Dave Chinner |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |