From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list xfs); Tue, 18 Dec 2007 04:29:10 -0800 (PST) Received: from larry.melbourne.sgi.com (larry.melbourne.sgi.com [134.14.52.130]) by oss.sgi.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11/SuSE Linux 0.7) with SMTP id lBICT02P026070 for ; Tue, 18 Dec 2007 04:29:02 -0800 Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2007 23:29:00 +1100 From: David Chinner Subject: Re: Issue with 2.6.23 and drbd 8.0.7 Message-ID: <20071218122900.GK4396912@sgi.com> References: <20071217143655.chiehahh@trusted.lncsa.com> <20071217220354.GU4396912@sgi.com> <4766F58C.8040000@lncsa.com> <20071217233759.GB4396912@sgi.com> <47678124.80906@lncsa.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <47678124.80906@lncsa.com> Sender: xfs-bounce@oss.sgi.com Errors-to: xfs-bounce@oss.sgi.com List-Id: xfs To: Laurent CARON Cc: David Chinner , xfs@oss.sgi.com On Tue, Dec 18, 2007 at 09:13:24AM +0100, Laurent CARON wrote: > David Chinner wrote: > > Hmmm - no real surprises there, but the numbers are well lower than the > > ~960MB low memory limit. I suspect that there's something at around > > 2.55am that does a filesystem traversal and that blows out the memory > > usage of these slab caches and you run out of lowmem... > > Thanks David for this information, > > On the previous setup (same pieces of software), we didn't had that kind > of problem. > > Do you think that more memory is used while using XFS on a filesystem > traversal than with ReiserFS (the previous setup used ReiserFS)? Yes, XFS will use more memory - XFS's inodes are substantially larger in memory than for reiserfs and so will consume more memory for the same number of cached inodes. Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner Principal Engineer SGI Australian Software Group