| To: | David Chinner <dgc@xxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: raw vs XFS sequential write and system load |
| From: | Mario Kadastik <mario.kadastik@xxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Sat, 27 Oct 2007 14:30:32 +0300 |
| Cc: | xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| In-reply-to: | <20071019075949.GS995458@sgi.com> |
| References: | <B4D42128-E5B2-48B1-AEF1-586FD90AF605@cern.ch> <20071018222357.GN995458@sgi.com> <F9DEBD65-7751-4187-97EF-1DF1F63B0888@cern.ch> <20071019075949.GS995458@sgi.com> |
| Sender: | xfs-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx |
|
Well to finally summarize, the things pointed out all helped too, but
the major change in system behavior came from the fact that 2.6.23
had totally different virtual memory defaults than 2.6.9 and running
with 2.6.23 one has to change the dirty_ratio to something bigger to
allow for a fast i/o machine to actually handle the load. Now the
four nodes we have are all running very nicely and calmly and
performing all the tasks we have asked from them, no more see we any
congestion etc. I have summarized my weeks of investigations into a twiki page, comments are welcome: http://hep.kbfi.ee/index.php/IT/KernelTuning Thanks for the help, Mario |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | [PATCH V3] optimize XFS_IS_REALTIME_INODE w/o realtime config, Eric Sandeen |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: raw vs XFS sequential write and system load, Justin Piszcz |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: raw vs XFS sequential write and system load, Mario Kadastik |
| Next by Thread: | Re: raw vs XFS sequential write and system load, Justin Piszcz |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |