From: Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com>
To: Mark Lord <kernel@teksavvy.com>
Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>,
xfs@oss.sgi.com, Linux Kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Stan Hoeppner <stan@hardwarefreak.com>,
Alex Elder <aelder@sgi.com>
Subject: Re: xfs: very slow after mount, very slow at umount
Date: Fri, 28 Jan 2011 10:41:52 +1100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20110127234152.GN21311@dastard> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4D418B57.1000501@teksavvy.com>
On Thu, Jan 27, 2011 at 10:12:23AM -0500, Mark Lord wrote:
> On 11-01-27 12:30 AM, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
> > Mark Lord put forth on 1/26/2011 9:49 PM:
> >
> >> agcount=7453
> >
> > That's probably a bit high Mark, and very possibly the cause of your problems.
> > :) Unless the disk array backing this filesystem has something like 400-800
> > striped disk drives. You said it's a single 2TB drive right?
> >
> > The default agcount for a single drive filesystem is 4 allocation groups. For
> > mdraid (of any number of disks/configuration) it's 16 allocation groups.
> >
> > Why/how did you end up with 7452 allocation groups? That can definitely cause
> > some performance issues due to massively excessive head seeking, and possibly
> > all manner of weirdness.
>
> This is great info, exactly the kind of feedback I was hoping for!
>
> The filesystem is about a year old now, and I probably used agsize=nnnnn
> when creating it or something.
>
> So if this resulted in what you consider to be many MANY too MANY ags,
> then I can imagine the first new file write wanting to go out and read
> in all of the ag data to determine the "best fit" or something.
> Which might explain some of the delay.
>
> Once I get the new 2TB drive, I'll re-run mkfs.xfs and then copy everything
> over onto a fresh xfs filesystem.
>
> Can you recommend a good set of mkfs.xfs parameters to suit the characteristics
> of this system?
http://xfs.org/index.php/XFS_FAQ#Q:_I_want_to_tune_my_XFS_filesystems_for_.3Csomething.3E
And perhaps you want to consider the allocsize mount option, though
that shouldn't be necessary for 2.6.38+...
Cheers,
Dave.
--
Dave Chinner
david@fromorbit.com
_______________________________________________
xfs mailing list
xfs@oss.sgi.com
http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com>
To: Mark Lord <kernel@teksavvy.com>
Cc: Stan Hoeppner <stan@hardwarefreak.com>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>,
Alex Elder <aelder@sgi.com>,
Linux Kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
xfs@oss.sgi.com
Subject: Re: xfs: very slow after mount, very slow at umount
Date: Fri, 28 Jan 2011 10:41:52 +1100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20110127234152.GN21311@dastard> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4D418B57.1000501@teksavvy.com>
On Thu, Jan 27, 2011 at 10:12:23AM -0500, Mark Lord wrote:
> On 11-01-27 12:30 AM, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
> > Mark Lord put forth on 1/26/2011 9:49 PM:
> >
> >> agcount=7453
> >
> > That's probably a bit high Mark, and very possibly the cause of your problems.
> > :) Unless the disk array backing this filesystem has something like 400-800
> > striped disk drives. You said it's a single 2TB drive right?
> >
> > The default agcount for a single drive filesystem is 4 allocation groups. For
> > mdraid (of any number of disks/configuration) it's 16 allocation groups.
> >
> > Why/how did you end up with 7452 allocation groups? That can definitely cause
> > some performance issues due to massively excessive head seeking, and possibly
> > all manner of weirdness.
>
> This is great info, exactly the kind of feedback I was hoping for!
>
> The filesystem is about a year old now, and I probably used agsize=nnnnn
> when creating it or something.
>
> So if this resulted in what you consider to be many MANY too MANY ags,
> then I can imagine the first new file write wanting to go out and read
> in all of the ag data to determine the "best fit" or something.
> Which might explain some of the delay.
>
> Once I get the new 2TB drive, I'll re-run mkfs.xfs and then copy everything
> over onto a fresh xfs filesystem.
>
> Can you recommend a good set of mkfs.xfs parameters to suit the characteristics
> of this system?
http://xfs.org/index.php/XFS_FAQ#Q:_I_want_to_tune_my_XFS_filesystems_for_.3Csomething.3E
And perhaps you want to consider the allocsize mount option, though
that shouldn't be necessary for 2.6.38+...
Cheers,
Dave.
--
Dave Chinner
david@fromorbit.com
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2011-01-27 23:39 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 69+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2011-01-27 1:22 xfs: very slow after mount, very slow at umount Mark Lord
2011-01-27 1:43 ` Mark Lord
2011-01-27 3:43 ` Dave Chinner
2011-01-27 3:43 ` Dave Chinner
2011-01-27 3:53 ` Mark Lord
2011-01-27 3:53 ` Mark Lord
2011-01-27 4:54 ` Mark Lord
2011-01-27 4:54 ` Mark Lord
2011-01-27 23:34 ` Dave Chinner
2011-01-27 23:34 ` Dave Chinner
2011-01-27 3:30 ` Dave Chinner
2011-01-27 3:30 ` Dave Chinner
2011-01-27 3:49 ` Mark Lord
2011-01-27 3:49 ` Mark Lord
2011-01-27 5:17 ` Stan Hoeppner
2011-01-27 15:12 ` Mark Lord
2011-01-27 15:12 ` Mark Lord
2011-01-27 15:40 ` Justin Piszcz
2011-01-27 15:40 ` Justin Piszcz
2011-01-27 16:03 ` Mark Lord
2011-01-27 16:03 ` Mark Lord
2011-01-27 19:40 ` Stan Hoeppner
2011-01-27 19:40 ` Stan Hoeppner
2011-01-27 20:11 ` david
2011-01-27 20:11 ` david
2011-01-27 23:53 ` Stan Hoeppner
2011-01-27 23:53 ` Stan Hoeppner
2011-01-28 2:09 ` david
2011-01-28 2:09 ` david
2011-01-28 13:56 ` Dave Chinner
2011-01-28 13:56 ` Dave Chinner
2011-01-28 19:26 ` david
2011-01-28 19:26 ` david
2011-01-29 5:40 ` Dave Chinner
2011-01-29 5:40 ` Dave Chinner
2011-01-29 6:08 ` david
2011-01-29 6:08 ` david
2011-01-29 7:35 ` Dave Chinner
2011-01-29 7:35 ` Dave Chinner
2011-01-31 19:17 ` Christoph Hellwig
2011-01-31 19:17 ` Christoph Hellwig
2011-01-27 21:56 ` Mark Lord
2011-01-27 21:56 ` Mark Lord
2011-01-28 0:17 ` Dave Chinner
2011-01-28 0:17 ` Dave Chinner
2011-01-28 1:22 ` Mark Lord
2011-01-28 1:22 ` Mark Lord
2011-01-28 1:36 ` Mark Lord
2011-01-28 1:36 ` Mark Lord
2011-01-28 4:14 ` David Rees
2011-01-28 4:14 ` David Rees
2011-01-28 14:22 ` Mark Lord
2011-01-28 14:22 ` Mark Lord
2011-01-28 7:31 ` Dave Chinner
2011-01-28 7:31 ` Dave Chinner
2011-01-28 14:33 ` Mark Lord
2011-01-28 14:33 ` Mark Lord
2011-01-28 23:58 ` Dave Chinner
2011-01-28 23:58 ` Dave Chinner
2011-01-28 19:18 ` Martin Steigerwald
2011-01-28 19:18 ` Martin Steigerwald
2011-01-27 20:24 ` John Stoffel
2011-01-27 20:24 ` John Stoffel
2011-01-27 23:41 ` Dave Chinner [this message]
2011-01-27 23:41 ` Dave Chinner
2011-01-28 0:59 ` Mark Lord
2011-01-28 0:59 ` Mark Lord
2011-01-27 23:39 ` Dave Chinner
2011-01-27 23:39 ` Dave Chinner
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=20110127234152.GN21311@dastard \
--to=david@fromorbit.com \
--cc=aelder@sgi.com \
--cc=hch@infradead.org \
--cc=kernel@teksavvy.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=stan@hardwarefreak.com \
--cc=xfs@oss.sgi.com \
/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.