xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: definitions for /proc/fs/xfs/stat

To: Mark Seger <mjseger@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: definitions for /proc/fs/xfs/stat
From: Stefan Ring <stefanrin@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2013 22:28:19 +0200
Cc: Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Nathan Scott <nathans@xxxxxxxxxx>, Linux fs XFS <xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Delivered-to: xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=UUOysE+AqPXryeo8jVtElYSA2Hu7X85GlCXTK37Ew0s=; b=tjyq1BsaeF5UbXFsTqsYThG4oQgGQocI25ScmEMJPc8unAvEHBZ3smMdXru03KcT1d gSmuWNB1r3n9wWCtT0bcih0xdYE5G9H1iTZye22wgsi62y4OXaq7qM7egmlJdm16IhKb SYIDMmCNxZl0EJUjPvzHi9JKxCk0J5tzIgF/mFOGGR9CiqN3tZVho+AdElNBVTob/DRW cR8/bIzwI5UcNHH45A3YEFProkowxMCswNpDywPDlD+1bFtlLBpWP1gXrxUeN85i/Mbi stAF9VFOw+kkLhAuSbpyMYIEaR5TJePVroUxtaAqRcXRJCxkZaLE6VwhvGzxgAyVddIs T+Vg==
In-reply-to: <CAC2B=ZGm4W=oFY+8sWAefhH79qK5N7yma4qQh_AQaOGiQDUWhw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <CAC2B=ZFP_Fg34aFpk857stgB7MGcrYs9tybRS-ttw1CXNeU41Q@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20130615020414.GB29338@dastard> <CAC2B=ZEUkd+ADnQLUKj9S-3rdo2=93WbW0tbLbwwHUvkh6v7Rw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <CAC2B=ZGgr5WPWOEehHDHKekM8yHgQ3QS4HMzM8+j217AfEoPyQ@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20130616001130.GE29338@dastard> <CAC2B=ZFZskLnp5baVJK+R1xrpOfTkr1QXpA9jyHvxfk5Wd4yDg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <419435719.1662203.1371431489790.JavaMail.root@xxxxxxxxxx> <20130617024603.GJ29338@dastard> <1597962722.1767244.1371447710942.JavaMail.root@xxxxxxxxxx> <CAC2B=ZENLd7hoP=U08hyb6xFw6ye0nL5MMW+iDnTXTcoKCYEvA@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20130617111347.GL29338@dastard> <CAC2B=ZGm4W=oFY+8sWAefhH79qK5N7yma4qQh_AQaOGiQDUWhw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> I asked around and people believe the cache is on the order of a few GB and
> the test ran I was intentionally large enough to overshadow any cache
> effects, running for about a minute and doing 100K 1K file creates.  The
> disk write data was close to a sustained 475MB/sec and would have easily
> filled the cache in the first handful of seconds which would have produced
> enough backpressure to slow down the write rate which it never did.

If a limited number of blocks gets written over and over, you won't
ever fill the cache.

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