From: Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com>
To: Mark Seger <mjseger@gmail.com>
Cc: Nathan Scott <nathans@redhat.com>, xfs@oss.sgi.com
Subject: Re: definitions for /proc/fs/xfs/stat
Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2013 09:14:29 +1000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20130616231429.GH29338@dastard> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAC2B=ZHBxCcvg4DMDdcRBXGrRJ2KVAibW1ToQ3yU5T5bQuHJtA@mail.gmail.com>
On Sun, Jun 16, 2013 at 06:31:13PM -0400, Mark Seger wrote:
> >
> > There is no way that fallocate() of 1000x1k files should be causing
> > 450MB/s of IO for 5 seconds.
>
> I agree and that's what has me puzzled as well.
>
> > However, I still have no idea what you are running this test on - as
> > I asked in another email, can you provide some information about
> > the system your are seeing this problem on so we can try to work out
> > what might be causing this?
> >
>
> sorry about that. This is an HP box with 192GB RAM and 6 2-core
> hyperthreaded CPUs, running ubuntu/precise
>
> segerm@az1-sw-object-0006:~$ uname -a
> Linux az1-sw-object-0006 2.6.38-16-server #68hf1026116v20120926-Ubuntu SMP
> Wed Sep 26 14:34:13 UTC 2012 x86_64 x86_64 x86_64 GNU/Linux
So it running a pretty old Ubuntu something-or-other kernel. There's
only limited help I can give you for this kernel as I've got no idea
what Ubuntu have put in it...
> segerm@az1-sw-object-0006:~$ python --version
> Python 2.7.1+
>
> segerm@az1-sw-object-0006:~$ xfs_repair -V
> xfs_repair version 3.1.4
>
> segerm@az1-sw-object-0006:~$ cat /proc/meminfo
> MemTotal: 198191696 kB
> MemFree: 166202324 kB
> Buffers: 193268 kB
> Cached: 21595332 kB
....
> over 60 mounts, but here's the one I'm writing to:
>
> segerm@az1-sw-object-0006:~$ mount | grep disk0
> /dev/sdc1 on /srv/node/disk0 type xfs (rw,nobarrier)
>
> not sure what you're looking for here so here's it all
>
> segerm@az1-sw-object-0006:~$ cat /proc/partitions
> major minor #blocks name
>
> 8 0 976762584 sda
> 8 1 248976 sda1
> 8 2 1 sda2
> 8 5 976510993 sda5
> 251 0 41943040 dm-0
> 251 1 8785920 dm-1
> 251 2 2928640 dm-2
> 8 16 976762584 sdb
> 8 17 976760832 sdb1
> 251 3 126889984 dm-3
> 251 4 389120 dm-4
> 251 5 41943040 dm-5
> 8 32 2930233816 sdc
> 8 33 2930233344 sdc1
....
> segerm@az1-sw-object-0006:~$ xfs_info /srv/node/disk0
> meta-data=/dev/sdc1 isize=1024 agcount=32, agsize=22892416
> blks
> = sectsz=512 attr=2
> data = bsize=4096 blocks=732557312, imaxpct=5
> = sunit=64 swidth=64 blks
> naming =version 2 bsize=4096 ascii-ci=0
> log =internal bsize=4096 blocks=357696, version=2
> = sectsz=512 sunit=64 blks, lazy-count=1
> realtime =none extsz=4096 blocks=0, rtextents=0
Ok, that's interesting - a 1k inode size, and sunit=swidth=256k. But
it doesn't cause a current kernel to reproduce the behaviour you are
seeing....
sunit=256k is interesting, because:
> 0.067874 cpu=0 pid=41977 fallocate [285] entry fd=15 mode=0x1
> offset=0x0 len=10240
> 0.067980 cpu=0 pid=41977 block_rq_insert dev_t=0x04100030 wr=write
> flags=SYNC sector=0xaec11a00 len=262144
That's a write which is rounded up to 256k.
BTW, that's a trace for a also a 10k fallocate, not 1k, but
regardless it doesn't change behaviour on my TOT test kernel.
> I hope this helps but if there's any more I can provide I'll be
> happy to do so.
It doesn't tell me what XFS is doing with the fallocate call.
Providing the trace-cmd trace output from the FAQ might shed some
light on it...
Cheers,
Dave.
--
Dave Chinner
david@fromorbit.com
_______________________________________________
xfs mailing list
xfs@oss.sgi.com
http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2013-06-16 23:14 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 28+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2013-06-14 16:37 definitions for /proc/fs/xfs/stat Mark Seger
2013-06-14 22:16 ` Nathan Scott
2013-06-14 22:37 ` Mark Seger
2013-06-15 0:17 ` Nathan Scott
2013-06-15 1:55 ` Mark Seger
2013-06-15 2:04 ` Dave Chinner
2013-06-15 10:35 ` Mark Seger
2013-06-15 16:22 ` Mark Seger
2013-06-16 0:11 ` Dave Chinner
2013-06-16 12:58 ` Mark Seger
2013-06-16 22:06 ` Dave Chinner
2013-06-16 22:31 ` Mark Seger
2013-06-16 23:14 ` Dave Chinner [this message]
2013-06-16 23:31 ` Mark Seger
2013-06-17 1:11 ` Nathan Scott
2013-06-17 2:46 ` Dave Chinner
2013-06-17 5:41 ` Nathan Scott
2013-06-17 10:57 ` Mark Seger
2013-06-17 11:13 ` Dave Chinner
2013-06-17 14:57 ` Mark Seger
2013-06-17 20:28 ` Stefan Ring
2013-06-18 0:15 ` Dave Chinner
2013-06-18 10:17 ` Mark Seger
2013-06-19 23:02 ` Useful stats (was Re: definitions for /proc/fs/xfs/stat) Nathan Scott
2013-06-17 11:19 ` definitions for /proc/fs/xfs/stat Dave Chinner
2013-06-17 13:18 ` Stan Hoeppner
2013-06-18 0:13 ` Mark Goodwin
2013-06-16 0:00 ` Dave Chinner
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=20130616231429.GH29338@dastard \
--to=david@fromorbit.com \
--cc=mjseger@gmail.com \
--cc=nathans@redhat.com \
--cc=xfs@oss.sgi.com \
/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