From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "J. Bruce Fields" Subject: Re: 2.6.31 under "heavy" NFS load. Date: Mon, 23 Nov 2009 16:27:26 -0500 Message-ID: <20091123212726.GC8534@fieldses.org> References: <4AF86DE4.5010607@krogh.cc> <20091110184126.GD15000@fieldses.org> <4AF9B994.8040301@krogh.cc> <4B05A91D.1090305@krogh.cc> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org, Greg Banks To: Jesper Krogh Return-path: Received: from fieldses.org ([174.143.236.118]:46697 "EHLO fieldses.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756202AbZKWV0m (ORCPT ); Mon, 23 Nov 2009 16:26:42 -0500 In-Reply-To: <4B05A91D.1090305-Q2TZfHgGEy4@public.gmane.org> Sender: linux-nfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Thu, Nov 19, 2009 at 09:22:53PM +0100, Jesper Krogh wrote: > Ok, I still haven't had the "excact same" workload put on the host, but > it has been running on the patched kernel for 8 days now and I havent > seen load numbers over 32 while service 1100MB/s over NFS (dd'ing 512 > bytes blocks out of the server from the clients) while doing local disk > IO for an iowait of ~25% (4 cores sucking what they can). This workload > is "similar" to the one sending it to load numbers of over 100 earlier. > > So I'm confident that the problem is solved by reverting the patch. OK, I'm applying the revert for 2.6.33. --b.