From: Dave Jones <davej@redhat.com>
To: Alan Cox <alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>
Cc: Trond Myklebust <trond.myklebust@fys.uio.no>,
Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@intel.com>,
"Ananiev, Leonid I" <leonid.i.ananiev@intel.com>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <Linux-Kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Postal 56% waits for flock_lock_file_wait
Date: Mon, 2 Oct 2006 13:40:39 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20061002174039.GA17764@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1159811516.8907.38.camel@localhost.localdomain>
On Mon, Oct 02, 2006 at 06:51:56PM +0100, Alan Cox wrote:
> Ar Llu, 2006-10-02 am 13:11 -0400, ysgrifennodd Trond Myklebust:
> > Ext3 does not use flock() in order to lock its journal. The performance
> > issues that he is seeing may well be due to the journalling, but that
> > has nothing to do with flock_lock_file_wait.
>
> The ext3 journal also generally speaking improves many-writer
> performance as do the reservations so the claim seems odd on that basis
> too. Rerun the test on a gigabyte iRam or similar and you'll see where
> the non-media bottlenecks actually are
"or similar" maybe. The iRam is pretty much junk in my experience[*].
It rarely survives a mkfs, let alone sustained high throughput I/O.
(And yes, I did try multiple DIMMs, including ones which survive
memtest86 just fine).
Another "Boots Windows, ship it" QA disaster afaics.
Dave
[*] And from googling/talking with other owners, my experiences aren't unique.
--
http://www.codemonkey.org.uk
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2006-10-02 17:40 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 13+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2006-10-01 16:53 Postal 56% waits for flock_lock_file_wait Ananiev, Leonid I
2006-10-01 17:18 ` Trond Myklebust
2006-10-02 16:57 ` Tim Chen
2006-10-02 17:11 ` Trond Myklebust
2006-10-02 17:51 ` Alan Cox
2006-10-02 17:40 ` Dave Jones [this message]
2006-10-02 22:00 ` Alan Cox
2006-10-02 21:40 ` Dave Jones
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2006-09-30 17:26 Ananiev, Leonid I
2006-10-01 4:05 ` Trond Myklebust
2006-09-30 5:25 Ananiev, Leonid I
2006-09-30 15:05 ` Trond Myklebust
2006-09-29 15:36 Ananiev, Leonid I
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20061002174039.GA17764@redhat.com \
--to=davej@redhat.com \
--cc=Linux-Kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk \
--cc=leonid.i.ananiev@intel.com \
--cc=tim.c.chen@intel.com \
--cc=trond.myklebust@fys.uio.no \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.