Search String: Display: Description: Sort:

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)


This search system is powered by Namazu