xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Bad performance with XFS + 2.6.38 / 2.6.39

To: stan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: Bad performance with XFS + 2.6.38 / 2.6.39
From: Yann Dupont <Yann.Dupont@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2011 18:56:34 +0100
Cc: xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <4EF1F6DD.8020603@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <CACaf2aYZ=k=x8sPFJs4f-4vQxs+qNyoO1EUi8X=iBjWjRhy99Q@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20111211233929.GI14273@dastard> <CACaf2aYTsxOBXEJEbQu7gwAminBc3R2usDHvypJW0AqOfnz0Pg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20111212010053.GM14273@dastard> <CACaf2ab-YjXAFm767MmRU5iuOmvkqQW3ZTfQewD5SGvF-opgYQ@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <4EF1A224.2070508@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <4EF1F6DD.8020603@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:8.0) Gecko/20111124 Thunderbird/8.0
Le 21/12/2011 16:10, Stan Hoeppner a écrit :


1.  What mailbox format are you using?  Is this a constant or variable?

Maildir++

2.  Is the Dovecot rev and config the same everywhere, before/after?
Yes
3.  Are Dovecot instances using NFS to access the XFS volumes?
NO. direct LVM volumes from SAN
4.  Is this a  Dovecot 2.x cluster with director and NFS storage?

NO. This is dovecot plain & simple.

When I go back to older kernels, the load go down. With newer kernel, all is working well too, but load (as reported by uptime) is higher.

Thanks,

--
Yann Dupont - Service IRTS, DSI Université de Nantes
Tel : 02.53.48.49.20 - Mail/Jabber : Yann.Dupont@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

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