linux-btrfs.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Josef Bacik <josef@redhat.com>
To: Calvin Walton <calvin.walton@kepstin.ca>
Cc: Henning Rohlfs <x+btrfs@xehonk.de>, linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Abysmal Performance
Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2011 11:58:34 -0400	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <4E02112A.4050609@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1308758246.484.6.camel@ayu>

On 06/22/2011 11:57 AM, Calvin Walton wrote:
> On Wed, 2011-06-22 at 11:39 -0400, Josef Bacik wrote:
>> On 06/22/2011 10:15 AM, Henning Rohlfs wrote:
>>> On Tue, 21 Jun 2011 11:24:11 -0400, Calvin Walton wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 2011-06-20 at 23:51 +0200, Henning Rohlfs wrote:
>>>>> Hello,
>>>>>
>>>>>  I've migrated my system to btrfs (raid1) a few months ago. Since=
 then
>>>>>  the performance has been pretty bad, but recently it's gotten
>>>>>  unbearable: a simple sync called while the system is idle can ta=
ke
>>>>> 20 up
>>>>>  to 60 seconds. Creating or deleting files often has several seco=
nds
>>>>>  latency, too.
>>>>
>>>> I think I=E2=80=99ve been seeing a fairly similar, or possibly the=
 same? issue
>>>> as well. It looks like it=E2=80=99s actually a regression introduc=
ed in 2.6.39 -
>>>> if I switch back to a 2.6.38 kernel, my latency issues magically g=
o
>>>> away! (I'm curious: does using the older 2.6.38.x kernel help with
>>>> anyone else that's seeing the issue?)
>=20
>>>> I think I can reproduce the issue well enough to bisect it, so I m=
ight
>>>> give that a try. It'll be slow going, though.
>>>
>>> You are right. This seems to be a regression in the .39 kernel. I t=
ested
>>> with 2.6.38.2 just now and the performance is back to normal.
>>
>> Would you mind bisecting?
>=20
> Just before I was going to try bisecting, I tried the 3.0-rc4 kernel =
out
> of curiosity. And it seems to be quite a bit better; at the very leas=
t,
> I=E2=80=99m not seeing gui applications stalling for ~10 seconds when=
 doing
> things like opening or writing files. Latencytop is reporting fsync()
> latencies staying pretty steady in the range of under 300ms, with
> occasional outliers at up to 2s, and it's not getting worse with time=
=2E
>=20
> I'll still look into doing a bisect between 2.6.38 and 2.6.39, I'm
> curious what went wrong.
>=20

Yeah that makes two of us :).  There were some other plugging changes
that went into to 38, so maybe bisect all of the kernel, not just fs/
just in case it was those and not us.  Thanks,

Josef
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" =
in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

  reply	other threads:[~2011-06-22 15:58 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 37+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2011-06-20 21:51 Abysmal Performance Henning Rohlfs
2011-06-21  0:12 ` Josef Bacik
2011-06-21  7:10   ` Henning Rohlfs
2011-06-21  8:00 ` Sander
2011-06-21  9:26   ` Henning Rohlfs
2011-06-21 15:18     ` Josef Bacik
2011-06-21 16:55       ` Henning Rohlfs
2011-06-21 15:24 ` Calvin Walton
2011-06-22 14:15   ` Henning Rohlfs
2011-06-22 15:39     ` Josef Bacik
2011-06-22 15:57       ` Calvin Walton
2011-06-22 15:58         ` Josef Bacik [this message]
  -- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2011-04-29 14:46 abysmal performance John Wyzer
2011-04-29 15:01 ` Chris Mason
2011-04-30 17:33   ` Mitch Harder
2011-04-30 20:40     ` John Wyzer
2011-04-30 22:16       ` Mitch Harder
2011-04-30 22:33         ` John Wyzer
2011-05-03 11:05           ` Chris Mason
2011-05-03 11:06           ` Chris Mason
2011-04-30 23:55     ` Peter Stuge
2011-05-03 10:33       ` Bernhard Schmidt
2011-05-03 11:00         ` cwillu
2011-05-03 11:26           ` Bernhard Schmidt
2011-05-03 11:08         ` Chris Mason
2011-05-03 11:30           ` Bernhard Schmidt
2011-05-03 11:36             ` Chris Mason
2011-05-03 11:43               ` Bernhard Schmidt
2011-05-03 12:52                 ` Chris Mason
2011-05-03 13:03                   ` Bernhard Schmidt
2011-05-03 13:41                     ` Mitch Harder
2011-05-03 14:41                   ` Daniel J Blueman
2011-05-03 15:42                     ` Mitch Harder
2011-05-03 16:51                       ` Chris Mason
2011-05-03 14:54             ` Daniel J Blueman
2011-05-03 15:10               ` Bernhard Schmidt
     [not found]   ` <1304100271-sup-4177@localhost>
     [not found]     ` <1304100862-sup-1493@think>
     [not found]       ` <1304107977-sup-3815@localhost>
     [not found]         ` <1304110058-sup-7292@think>
     [not found]           ` <1304146193-sup-2200@localhost>
2011-04-30 20:51             ` John Wyzer

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=4E02112A.4050609@redhat.com \
    --to=josef@redhat.com \
    --cc=calvin.walton@kepstin.ca \
    --cc=linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=x+btrfs@xehonk.de \
    /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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).