From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Bernd Schubert Subject: Re: large files Date: Tue, 18 May 2004 16:49:18 +0200 Sender: Bernd Schubert Message-ID: <200405181649.22909.bernd-schubert@web.de> References: <200405172148.33162.bernd-schubert@web.de> <200405181544.36152.bernd-schubert@web.de> <1084888676.20437.1477.camel@watt.suse.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha1; boundary="Boundary-02=_yJiqACxBRkyPs1F"; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: list-help: list-unsubscribe: list-post: Errors-To: flx@namesys.com In-Reply-To: <1084888676.20437.1477.camel@watt.suse.com> List-Id: To: Chris Mason Cc: Reiserfs mail-list --Boundary-02=_yJiqACxBRkyPs1F Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Description: signed data Content-Disposition: inline > > 1.) During the filecreation in 2.4.26 the load on the system was around > > 3-4, whereas in 2.6.6-mm3 the load was at about 8-9. > > Which procs contributed to this load? The simple dd should have kept > the load at one. Thats all I can see from top (2.4.26): top - 16:45:14 up 4:47, 1 user, load average: 3.30, 2.80, 2.09 Tasks: 80 total, 1 running, 79 sleeping, 0 stopped, 0 zombie Cpu(s): 0.0% user, 24.0% system, 0.0% nice, 76.0% idle Mem: 3104428k total, 3018816k used, 85612k free, 228936k buffers Swap: 1951888k total, 0k used, 1951888k free, 2662272k cached PID USER PR NI VIRT RES SHR S %CPU %MEM TIME+ COMMAND = =20 1043 root 19 0 1392 364 320 D 40.7 0.0 3:11.55 dd = =20 7 root 9 0 0 0 0 D 3.7 0.0 4:02.48 kupdated = =20 6 root 9 0 0 0 0 D 1.7 0.0 2:15.18 bdflush = =20 5 root 9 0 0 0 0 S 1.0 0.0 2:47.13 kswapd = =20 17 root 9 0 0 0 0 D 0.3 0.0 0:46.62 kreiserfsd = =20 1052 root 9 0 1040 1040 820 R 0.3 0.0 0:00.02 top = =20 taylor:~# cat /proc/stat=20 cpu 402 0 538233 2938065 cpu0 221 0 267698 1470431 cpu1 181 0 270535 1467634 page 215506778 453499588 swap 1 0 intr 200179775 1738350 2 0 9 4 0 2 0 4 2 0 0 0 0 13 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 50177= 28=20 187006 0 0 0 193236650 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=20 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=20 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=20 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=20 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=20 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 disk_io: (3,0):(4,4,32,0,0) (8,0): (5058268,3638518,431013524,1419750,906999184)=20 ctxt 179608469 btime 1084874257 processes 1054 Unfortunality I even don't have an idea how to interprete those numbers. > > Do you have any ideas how we could improve 2.4.x? > > 2.6.6-mm has a few key improvements. There's less metadata > fragmentation thanks to some block allocator fixes. More importantly, > during the rm, metadata blocks are read in 16 at a time instead of 1 at > a time. I'd be happy to give someone pointers on porting the metadata > readahead bits back to 2.4. I certainly have neither the knowledge nor the time to do that. Cheers, Bernd --Boundary-02=_yJiqACxBRkyPs1F Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Description: signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQBAqiJyC8BUnAF+ydYRAs9IAKCcN6+uQsAmt5PPge4vaNUDP+nSJACgq+tk MvNbHZW7h/QOfOE51zh41hE= =nVd4 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Boundary-02=_yJiqACxBRkyPs1F--