Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*Performance\s+question\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*Performance\s+question\s*$/: 20 ]

Total 20 documents matching your query.

1. Performance question (score: 1): Author:; Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2004 12:57:35 -0500 (EST); I have a server with a single 3ware 7500-8 board and 8 Maxtor 160GB disks running as a hardware RAID5 w/ a hot spare. I'm running RedHat 7.3 and the 2.4.18-18SGI_XFS_1.2.0smp kernel (more on the kern; /archives/xfs/2004-02/msg00186.html (9,660 bytes)
2. Re: Performance question (score: 1): Author:; Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2004 19:41:45 +0100; At 12:57 18-2-2004 -0500, Joshua Baker-LePain wrote: I've pretty much ruled out hardware. I've swapped the 3ware and rebuilt the array, and the disks all show good SMART data. Have you considered rai; /archives/xfs/2004-02/msg00188.html (9,264 bytes)
3. Re: Performance question (score: 1): Author:; Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2004 19:47:15 +0100; should read 'version 2 logs instead of version 1 logs', shouldn't it?:-) - Christian; /archives/xfs/2004-02/msg00189.html (9,822 bytes)
4. Re: Performance question (score: 1): Author:; Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2004 20:03:18 +0100; At 19:41 18-2-2004 +0100, Seth Mos wrote: At 12:57 18-2-2004 -0500, Joshua Baker-LePain wrote: Perhaps creating the filessystem with a larger inode size like 512. You could also use version logs inst; /archives/xfs/2004-02/msg00190.html (8,430 bytes)
5. Re: Performance question (score: 1): Author:; Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2004 14:25:06 -0500 (EST); Unfortunately I shold have mentioned that this is a heavily used production server, and doing anything the requires rebuilding the FS is pretty much off limits unless I have a *very* good reason. Yea; /archives/xfs/2004-02/msg00194.html (9,281 bytes)
6. Re: Performance question (score: 1): Author:; Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2004 20:43:12 +0100; described Yeah, I really think it's the large number of files. I'm working to see how much of them we can clean up right now. I was wondering if xfs_fsr would be a good idea, but ISTR it not being al; /archives/xfs/2004-02/msg00195.html (9,804 bytes)
7. Re: Performance question (score: 1): Author:; Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2004 07:18:00 +1100; Sounds like Eric's area of expertise. :) Could be another case of inodes not being reclaimed aggresively enough, and OOM follows...? cheers. -- Nathan; /archives/xfs/2004-02/msg00199.html (10,247 bytes)
8. Re: Performance question (score: 1): Author:; Date: 18 Feb 2004 14:51:48 -0600; Ah... sure... :) Can you watch /proc/slabinfo as this happens, is any particular slab cache growing extremely large? Where is the memory going? Glen suggested that perhaps your directory with all th; /archives/xfs/2004-02/msg00200.html (8,851 bytes)
9. Re: Performance question (score: 1): Author:; Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2004 16:04:28 -0500 (EST); There's nothing like confidence I always say... ;) I'll schedule some time to reboot into the "newer" kernel to try this. I reverted to XFS 1.2 after that behavior (obviously), and can't reboot ATM a; /archives/xfs/2004-02/msg00201.html (9,579 bytes)
10. Re: Performance question (score: 1): Author:; Date: 18 Feb 2004 15:59:50 -0600; If any one of those has a huge number of inodes in a single dir, that'd be the one we're interested in. -Eric -- Eric Sandeen [C]XFS for Linux http://oss.sgi.com/projects/xfs sandeen@xxxxxxx SGI, Inc; /archives/xfs/2004-02/msg00202.html (9,316 bytes)
11. Performance question (score: 1): Author: >; Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2004 12:57:35 -0500 (EST); .25 final; /archives/xfs/2004-02/msg00521.html (9,660 bytes)
12. Re: Performance question (score: 1): Author: x; Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2004 19:41:45 +0100; the remou; /archives/xfs/2004-02/msg00523.html (9,264 bytes)
13. Re: Performance question (score: 1): Author: >; Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2004 19:47:15 +0100; dered rai; /archives/xfs/2004-02/msg00524.html (9,822 bytes)
14. Re: Performance question (score: 1): Author: >; Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2004 20:03:18 +0100; Christian; /archives/xfs/2004-02/msg00525.html (8,430 bytes)
15. Re: Performance question (score: 1): Author: >; Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2004 14:25:06 -0500 (EST); s that th; /archives/xfs/2004-02/msg00529.html (9,281 bytes)
16. Re: Performance question (score: 1): Author: >; Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2004 20:43:12 +0100; ason. Yea; /archives/xfs/2004-02/msg00530.html (9,804 bytes)
17. Re: Performance question (score: 1): Author: >; Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2004 07:18:00 +1100; -- Nathan; /archives/xfs/2004-02/msg00534.html (10,247 bytes)
18. Re: Performance question (score: 1): Author: >; Date: 18 Feb 2004 14:51:48 -0600; -- Nathan; /archives/xfs/2004-02/msg00535.html (8,851 bytes)
19. Re: Performance question (score: 1): Author: >; Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2004 16:04:28 -0500 (EST); th all th; /archives/xfs/2004-02/msg00536.html (9,579 bytes)
20. Re: Performance question (score: 1): Author: >; Date: 18 Feb 2004 15:59:50 -0600; oot ATM a; /archives/xfs/2004-02/msg00537.html (9,316 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 20
Page: [1]