| 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> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: [PATCH] xfstests: new check 276 to ensure btrfs backref integrity, Eric Sandeen |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: Bad performance with XFS + 2.6.38 / 2.6.39, Dave Chinner |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: Bad performance with XFS + 2.6.38 / 2.6.39, Stan Hoeppner |
| Next by Thread: | Re: Bad performance with XFS + 2.6.38 / 2.6.39, Dave Chinner |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |