From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda3.sgi.com [192.48.176.15]) by oss.sgi.com (8.14.3/8.14.3/SuSE Linux 0.8) with ESMTP id o5A0iXZE042216 for ; Wed, 9 Jun 2010 19:44:33 -0500 Received: from mail.internode.on.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cuda.sgi.com (Spam Firewall) with ESMTP id EF64714AFEFE for ; Wed, 9 Jun 2010 17:47:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.internode.on.net (bld-mail17.adl2.internode.on.net [150.101.137.102]) by cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id wGkgZzGQRTojSE09 for ; Wed, 09 Jun 2010 17:47:04 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 10 Jun 2010 10:47:01 +1000 From: Dave Chinner Subject: Re: xfs, 2.6.27=>.32 sync write 10 times slowdown [was: xfs, aacraid 2.6.27 => 2.6.32 results in 6 times slowdown] Message-ID: <20100610004701.GN7869@dastard> References: <4C0E13A7.20402@msgid.tls.msk.ru> <20100608122919.GC7869@dastard> <4C0EA938.9000104@msgid.tls.msk.ru> <20100608231845.GG7869@dastard> <4C0F3819.4000409@msgid.tls.msk.ru> <20100609074741.GJ7869@dastard> <4C0FE779.8010603@msgid.tls.msk.ru> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4C0FE779.8010603@msgid.tls.msk.ru> List-Id: XFS Filesystem from SGI List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com Errors-To: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com To: Michael Tokarev Cc: Linux-kernel , xfs@oss.sgi.com On Wed, Jun 09, 2010 at 11:11:53PM +0400, Michael Tokarev wrote: > 09.06.2010 11:47, Dave Chinner wrote: > >On Wed, Jun 09, 2010 at 10:43:37AM +0400, Michael Tokarev wrote: > >>09.06.2010 03:18, Dave Chinner wrote: > >>>On Wed, Jun 09, 2010 at 12:34:00AM +0400, Michael Tokarev wrote: > >>[] > >>>>Simple test doing random reads or writes of 4k blocks in a 1Gb > >>>>file located on an xfs filesystem, Mb/sec: > >>>> > >>>> sync direct > >>>> read write write > >>>>2.6.27 xfs 1.17 3.69 3.80 > >>>>2.6.32 xfs 1.26 0.52 5.10 > >>>> ^^^^ > >>>>2.6.32 ext3 1.19 4.91 5.02 > > > >Out of curiousity, what does 2.6.34 get on this workload? > > 2.6.34 works quite well: > 2.6.34 xfs 1.14 4.75 5.00 Ok, so we are looking at a fixed regression, then. What stable version of 2.6.32 are you testing? A large number of XFS fixes went into 2.6.32.12 (IIRC, it might have been .13), so maybe the problem is fixed there. Alternatively, can you use 2.6.34 rather than 2.6.32, or bisect the regression down to a specific set of fixes so we can consider whether a backport is worth the effort? > The same is with -o osyncisosync (in .34). Actually, > osyncis[od]sync mount options does not change anything, not > in .32 nor in .34. I think only osyncisosync exists, and it doesn't do anything anymore. Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner david@fromorbit.com _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs