xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [PATCH] Increase the default size of the reserved blocks pool

To: lachlan@xxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Increase the default size of the reserved blocks pool
From: Mark Goodwin <markgw@xxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2008 13:26:17 +1000
Cc: xfs-dev <xfs-dev@xxxxxxx>, xfs-oss <xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx>
In-reply-to: <48E097B5.3010906@sgi.com>
Organization: SGI Engineering
References: <48E097B5.3010906@sgi.com>
Reply-to: markgw@xxxxxxx
Sender: xfs-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx
User-agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.17 (Windows/20080914)


Lachlan McIlroy wrote:
The current default size of the reserved blocks pool is easy to deplete
with certain workloads, in particular workloads that do lots of concurrent
delayed allocation extent conversions.  If enough transactions are running
in parallel and the entire pool is consumed then subsequent calls to
xfs_trans_reserve() will fail with ENOSPC.  Also add a rate limited
warning so we know if this starts happening again.


Should we also change the semantics of the XFS_SET_RESBLKS ioctl so that the passed in value is the minimum required by the caller, i.e. silently succeed if the current value is more than that?

Cheers
-- Mark


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