I seem to be having the same problem as CHIKAMA Masaki was having in December namely "chown -R" running very slowly when hitting lots of files (~17 million in my case). My machine doesn't have the sa
Do you have high CPU usage when running the chown? - Or just processes hanging i D-state? -- Med venlig hilsen - Best regards - Meilleures salutations Anders Saaby Systems Engineer -- Cohaesio A/S -
The problem is different because there's no OOM killer being invoked, right? All you see is a slowdown? How much CPU time is the chmod consuming? Well, doing a chmod on a single file requires an inod
Thanks first off for your reply as well. It was your old postings that inspired me to even ask my question... You're right that their is no OOMKiller on my system, so the problem is perhaps unrelate
First, thanks for the reply. Yes, high CPU load, around 6-7 on a dual AMD Opteron system but much of it may be caused by other things running. Is there some tool that can isolate the load vs. D-stat
David Chinner wrote: On Mon, May 15, 2006 at 02:30:54PM -0700, Peter Broadwell wrote: My chown did finally finish, some 63 hrs later for about 75 chowns/sec. This is running on system with 4 SATA 720
If you wanted to change every inode in the filesystem, then yes, it could be done this way (e.g. an inode cluster at a time). And the difference in I/Os would be more like an order of magnitude. Howe
I seem to be having the same problem as CHIKAMA Masaki was having in December namely "chown -R" running very slowly when hitting lots of files (~17 million in my case). My machine doesn't have the sa
Do you have high CPU usage when running the chown? - Or just processes hanging i D-state? -- Med venlig hilsen - Best regards - Meilleures salutations Anders Saaby Systems Engineer -- Cohaesio A/S -
The problem is different because there's no OOM killer being invoked, right? All you see is a slowdown? How much CPU time is the chmod consuming? Well, doing a chmod on a single file requires an inod
Thanks first off for your reply as well. It was your old postings that inspired me to even ask my question... You're right that their is no OOMKiller on my system, so the problem is perhaps unrelate
First, thanks for the reply. Yes, high CPU load, around 6-7 on a dual AMD Opteron system but much of it may be caused by other things running. Is there some tool that can isolate the load vs. D-stat
David Chinner wrote: On Mon, May 15, 2006 at 02:30:54PM -0700, Peter Broadwell wrote: My chown did finally finish, some 63 hrs later for about 75 chowns/sec. This is running on system with 4 SATA 720
If you wanted to change every inode in the filesystem, then yes, it could be done this way (e.g. an inode cluster at a time). And the difference in I/Os would be more like an order of magnitude. Howe
Hello all. I have trouble about a storange behavior on xfs fileststem. When I did "chmod -R 755 ." on deep directory, the system became slow down and began to start OOMkiller after a while. At that t
How many files in the directory structure and how deep is it? What is the machine you are running this test on (CPU, ram, etc). Can you send the output of /proc/meminfo, /proc/slabinfo and the OOM ki
The directory structure is like this. A/B/C/D/E/F.jpg A: from "1" to "14" B: from "0" to "16" C: "00" D: from "0" to "6" E: from "0" to "255" F: from "0" to "255" The number of files should be aroun
Lots of files. Large filesystem, comparitively little RAM to speak of. Looks to me like you haven't got enough memory to hold all the active log items when chmod -R runs and so you run out of memory
It is nasty that XFS can get into this state though. Would it make sense to limit the in memory log based on available memory? With such a limit it would still work, but slower, right? -Andi