On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 06:30:47PM -0400, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 07:35:57PM +0200, Stefan Priebe - Profihost AG wrote:
> > Am 20.09.2011 19:24, schrieb Christoph Hellwig:
> > >On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 07:23:00PM +0200, Stefan Priebe - Profihost AG
> > >wrote:
> > >>> - what is the fs geometry?
> > >>What do you exactly mean? I've seen this on 1TB and 160GB SSD
> > >>devices with totally different disk layout.
> > >
> > >The output of mkfs.xfs (of xfs_info after it's been created)
> > ssd:~# xfs_info /dev/sda3
> > meta-data=/dev/root isize=256 agcount=4, agsize=9517888 blks
> > = sectsz=512 attr=2
> > data = bsize=4096 blocks=38071552, imaxpct=25
> > = sunit=0 swidth=0 blks
> > naming =version 2 bsize=4096 ascii-ci=0
> > log =internal bsize=4096 blocks=18589, version=2
> > = sectsz=512 sunit=0 blks, lazy-count=1
> > realtime =none extsz=4096 blocks=0, rtextents=0
> Nothing special there.
> So far I haven't been able to recreate it. How many runs did you
> normally need on 3.1-rc? Note that so far I've run my known working
> kernel, I'll test your config plus the drivers I need next.
How much memory does your test machine have? The performance will be
vastly different if there is enough RAM to hold the working set of
inodes and page cache (~20GB all up), and that could be one of the
factors contributing to the problems.
The above xfs_info output is from your 160GB SSD - what's the output
from the 1TB device?
Also, what phase do you see it hanging in? the random stat phase is
terribly slow on spinning disks, so if I can avoid that it woul dbe