xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: 2.6.39-rc3, 2.6.39-rc4: XFS lockup - regression since 2.6.38

To: Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: 2.6.39-rc3, 2.6.39-rc4: XFS lockup - regression since 2.6.38
From: Andrey Rahmatullin <wrar@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 20 May 2011 17:20:18 +0600
Cc: Markus Trippelsdorf <markus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Bruno Prémont <bonbons@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, xfs-masters@xxxxxxxxxxx, xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx, Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Alex Elder <aelder@xxxxxxx>, Dave Chinner <dchinner@xxxxxxxxxx>, linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <20110429011929.GA13542@dastard>
References: <20110423224403.5fd1136a@xxxxxxxxxxxx> <20110427050850.GG12436@dastard> <20110427182622.05a068a2@xxxxxxxxxxxx> <20110428194528.GA1627@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20110429011929.GA13542@dastard>
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
On Fri, Apr 29, 2011 at 11:19:29AM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote:
> > x4 ~ # xfs_info /
> > meta-data=/dev/root              isize=256    agcount=4, agsize=1949824 blks
> >          =                       sectsz=512   attr=2
> > data     =                       bsize=4096   blocks=7799296, imaxpct=25
> >          =                       sunit=128    swidth=128 blks
> > naming   =version 2              bsize=4096   ascii-ci=0
> > log      =internal               bsize=4096   blocks=3808, version=2
> >          =                       sectsz=512   sunit=8 blks, lazy-count=1
> > realtime =none                   extsz=4096   blocks=0, rtextents=0
> OK, so the common elements here appears to be root filesystems
> with small log sizes, which means they are tail pushing all the
> time metadata operations are in progress. 
Does that mean that such filesystems are not optimal in terms of
performance and/or reliability and should have larger log sizes?

-- 
WBR, wRAR

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

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