| To: | Nathan Scott <nathans@xxxxxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: definitions for /proc/fs/xfs/stat |
| From: | Mark Seger <mjseger@xxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Fri, 14 Jun 2013 21:55:17 -0400 |
| Cc: | 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=8E4KrLXL7l+BkxDxGb4vjPxke1rn3LmdpEzw5s9nKeQ=; b=Dj5PBj5NRAYJisiTy8UG4gjC3gytrOaQFlwg9QkkFghEZMs8gl/Z5xklPvM9SeLss+ d6ewndlxz2c+XRsIDRyH2yfjkSwc1JF/ON9bGsbjHf0M+W8ZVpQJb/1IsQg8dCUGDiCL 1fQFrTpLjScxpbRkPPBRxhvzgqdrhkbt0qy9muxtGKctDTS4ShegPLWt1+f3E9q7atg+ hg5FyOVhflZ/f5EOAlUWs3FlZwaORm4i5cY7rv5WN+1t+O4wxoKhYYfL3qfhPlgWUQUe bx19LLzabJPkp8+q8CfC8iWKD0kEb0OdzV85RKzdkTDz8izNBVZysxGK3vw8B5NsX5xl KboQ== |
| In-reply-to: | <504625587.1365681.1371255450937.JavaMail.root@xxxxxxxxxx> |
| References: | <CAC2B=ZFP_Fg34aFpk857stgB7MGcrYs9tybRS-ttw1CXNeU41Q@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <91017249.1356192.1371248207334.JavaMail.root@xxxxxxxxxx> <CAC2B=ZHYV6d-1PO_=-jXsQidZnYPHVwcVAaQh2mxJt=5K03AEA@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <504625587.1365681.1371255450937.JavaMail.root@xxxxxxxxxx> |
|
I'm doing 1 second samples and the rates are very steady. The reason I ended up at this level of testing was I had done a sustained test for 2 minutes at about 5MB/sec and was seeing over 500MB/sec going to the disk, again sampling at 1-second intervals. I'd be happy to provide detailed output and can even sample more frequently if you like. from my shorter test I was experimenting looking at some of the XFS data with collectl and recorded this, it if help at all: segerm@az1-sw-object-0006:~$ collectl --import xfs
waiting for 1 second sample... #<--XFS Ops--><-----------XFS Logging----------><------Extents------><------DirOps-------><----Trans---><-
# Write Reads Writes WrtKBs NoRoom Force Sleep ExtA BlkA ExtF ExtF Look Cre8 Remv Gdnt Sync Asyn Empt 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 3 768 0 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 1 256 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 38 88 95 24320 0 95 96 54 54 54 54 115 76 76 154 95 473 0
339 776 968 247816 0 968 978 484 484 479 479 1011 675 671 1351 967 4087 0 321 748 929 237806 0 929 935 450 450 453 453 967 645 647 1287 930 3847 0
279 637 810 207360 0 810 811 391 391 390 390 838 559 558 1118 810 3324 0 209 482 610 156160 0 610 610 286 286 289 289 627 417 420 834 610 2451 0
0 0 3 768 0 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 I can say for a fact I was doing about 300 wtrites/sec whcih the write numbers seem to support, though I don't know what the read numbers are measuring. you can also see from the logging data that was 250MB/sec going to disk.
Are there other numbers that are meaningful that you'd like to see? All it takes is adding a couple of print statement as what you're seeing above only took a hour or so to throw to together.
I can collect as much (or little as you like) and actually can save the complete contents of /proc/fs/xfs/stat every second in a file for later playback.
-mark On Fri, Jun 14, 2013 at 8:17 PM, Nathan Scott <nathans@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
|
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: possible null pointer in xlog_iodone, Dave Chinner |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: definitions for /proc/fs/xfs/stat, Dave Chinner |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: definitions for /proc/fs/xfs/stat, Nathan Scott |
| Next by Thread: | Re: definitions for /proc/fs/xfs/stat, Dave Chinner |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |