Re: BUG: Slowdown on 3000 socket-machines tracked down

[Christian Schmid <webmaster@rapidforum.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1255 bytes --]

Attached an image here so you can see whats happening. One pixel are 2 seconds. You can see a small 
speed-up before the slow-down. This is where I changed lower_zone_protection from 1024 to 0. So it 
seems its speeding up until the memory is full. Then it drastically slows-down until I set it to 
1024 again. then it goes up slowly but not linear (interesting smoothly) until it peaks again at 82 
MB/Sec.

PS: 82 MB/sec is not our bandwidth-limit. It still peaks there. Dont know why. Certainly not the 
drives. They work up to 200 MB/Sec (10 drives there).

Chris


Andrew Morton wrote:
> Christian Schmid <webmaster@rapidforum.com> wrote:
> 
>> > So, maybe a VM problem?  That would be a good place to focus since
>> > I think we can be fairly certain it isn't a problem in just the
>> > networking code.  Otherwise, my tests would show lower bandwidth.
>>
>> Thanks to your tests I am really sure that its no network-code problem anymore. But what I THINK it 
>> is: The network is allocating buffers dynamically and if the vm doesnt provide that buffers fast 
>> enough, it locks as well.
> 
> 
> Did anyone have a 100-liner which demonstrates this problem?
> 
> The output of `vmstat 1' when the thing starts happening would be interesting.
> 
> 

[-- Attachment #2: traffic8.png --]
[-- Type: image/png, Size: 1515 bytes --]