From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Cami Subject: Re: reiserfs v3 patches updated Date: Tue, 06 Apr 2004 23:30:45 +0200 Message-ID: <40732185.8060303@mweb.co.za> References: <1081210239.4994.69.camel@watt.suse.com> <200404061838.05099.christian.mayrhuber@gmx.net> <4072F6F1.3090806@mweb.co.za> <1081277245.30813.81.camel@watt.suse.com> <4073022E.3090100@mweb.co.za> <1081279465.30829.128.camel@watt.suse.com> <40730ABD.3070507@mweb.co.za> <1081283607.30811.206.camel@watt.suse.com> <4073186C.3010601@mweb.co.za> <1081285851.30813.269.camel@watt.suse.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: list-help: list-unsubscribe: list-post: Errors-To: flx@namesys.com In-Reply-To: <1081285851.30813.269.camel@watt.suse.com> List-Id: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed" To: reiserfs-list@namesys.com >>>I'm a little slow today. data=ordered is the default with these >>>patches. You need to mount -o data=writeback. >> >>data=writeback yields pretty much the same iowait results.. >>(machine 1+2 are around 5%->8% whereas machine 3->8 are at around 0.8%) > > This is so much faster I'm worried the io isn't actually getting done. > In the mail server benchmark I use (synctest -n 1 -t 50 -f -F), the time > went from 2m15s to 43s. The old 2m15s was still faster then I used to > get with unpatched reiserfs. > > I'm posting this for the truly brave among you and a little review. I > need to do more tests on it. The basic idea is to make sure we don't > start writeback on the log buffers and metadata if someone is already > doing it. > > Also, the reiserfs work queue is not kicked during transaction end if > some other process is going to do the commit. This saves a lot of > context switches. And just as i was about to head into bed ;) 23:26:25 up 5 min, 1 user, load average: 0.62, 0.36, 0.14 340 processes: 339 sleeping, 1 running, 0 zombie, 0 stopped CPU states: cpu user nice system irq softirq iowait idle total 7.6% 0.0% 30.8% 0.0% 1.2% 0.4% 358.8% cpu00 1.7% 0.0% 6.6% 0.1% 1.1% 0.1% 90.0% cpu01 2.1% 0.0% 11.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 86.7% cpu02 2.0% 0.0% 6.8% 0.0% 0.0% 0.3% 90.6% cpu03 1.9% 0.0% 6.7% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 91.1% 23:27:11 up 5 min, 1 user, load average: 0.40, 0.34, 0.14 343 processes: 342 sleeping, 1 running, 0 zombie, 0 stopped CPU states: cpu user nice system irq softirq iowait idle total 6.8% 0.0% 26.0% 0.0% 0.8% 0.4% 364.8% cpu00 1.7% 0.0% 5.9% 0.1% 0.9% 0.1% 91.0% cpu01 1.5% 0.0% 5.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 93.1% cpu02 1.9% 0.0% 4.7% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 93.1% cpu03 1.9% 0.0% 9.9% 0.0% 0.1% 0.0% 87.9% 23:27:21 up 5 min, 1 user, load average: 0.63, 0.40, 0.16 343 processes: 342 sleeping, 1 running, 0 zombie, 0 stopped CPU states: cpu user nice system irq softirq iowait idle total 8.0% 0.0% 28.4% 0.0% 1.2% 0.4% 360.8% cpu00 2.2% 0.0% 6.1% 0.1% 1.1% 0.0% 90.2% cpu01 2.0% 0.0% 10.4% 0.0% 0.1% 0.3% 86.8% cpu02 1.7% 0.0% 6.4% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 91.6% cpu03 1.7% 0.0% 5.7% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 92.3% 23:27:32 up 6 min, 1 user, load average: 0.53, 0.38, 0.16 343 processes: 341 sleeping, 2 running, 0 zombie, 0 stopped CPU states: cpu user nice system irq softirq iowait idle total 10.0% 0.0% 35.6% 0.0% 1.6% 0.8% 350.8% cpu00 2.4% 0.0% 8.3% 0.1% 1.3% 0.1% 87.4% cpu01 2.6% 0.0% 11.8% 0.0% 0.1% 0.1% 85.1% cpu02 2.4% 0.0% 7.8% 0.0% 0.1% 0.1% 89.3% cpu03 2.4% 0.0% 8.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.3% 89.1% 23:27:37 up 6 min, 1 user, load average: 0.49, 0.38, 0.16 343 processes: 342 sleeping, 1 running, 0 zombie, 0 stopped CPU states: cpu user nice system irq softirq iowait idle total 6.4% 0.0% 26.4% 0.0% 0.4% 0.0% 365.2% cpu00 1.7% 0.0% 5.9% 0.1% 0.5% 0.0% 91.6% cpu01 1.5% 0.0% 9.5% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 88.9% cpu02 1.7% 0.0% 5.5% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 92.5% cpu03 1.7% 0.0% 5.7% 0.0% 0.1% 0.1% 92.2% 23:27:47 up 6 min, 1 user, load average: 0.41, 0.36, 0.16 343 processes: 342 sleeping, 1 running, 0 zombie, 0 stopped CPU states: cpu user nice system irq softirq iowait idle total 8.0% 0.0% 29.2% 0.0% 1.2% 0.4% 360.0% cpu00 2.0% 0.0% 9.7% 0.1% 0.9% 0.1% 86.8% cpu01 2.2% 0.0% 5.9% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 91.6% cpu02 1.7% 0.0% 7.4% 0.0% 0.1% 0.0% 90.6% cpu03 2.4% 0.0% 6.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.3% 91.0% Hrmph! Its not going above 0.8% iowait.. it hangs around the 0.0% -> 0.04% mark.. Looks good, thanks.. ;) Regards, Cami