From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda2.sgi.com [192.48.176.25]) by oss.sgi.com (8.14.3/8.14.3/SuSE Linux 0.8) with ESMTP id o5A5um9d056874 for ; Thu, 10 Jun 2010 00:56:48 -0500 Received: from isrv.corpit.ru (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cuda.sgi.com (Spam Firewall) with ESMTP id 7271D3B9345 for ; Wed, 9 Jun 2010 22:59:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: from isrv.corpit.ru (isrv.corpit.ru [81.13.33.159]) by cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id cSf2scIOHM9xLPdT for ; Wed, 09 Jun 2010 22:59:20 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <4C107F36.4070000@msgid.tls.msk.ru> Date: Thu, 10 Jun 2010 09:59:18 +0400 From: Michael Tokarev MIME-Version: 1.0 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] 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> <20100610004701.GN7869@dastard> In-Reply-To: <20100610004701.GN7869@dastard> List-Id: XFS Filesystem from SGI List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed" Sender: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com Errors-To: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com To: Dave Chinner Cc: Linux-kernel , xfs@oss.sgi.com 10.06.2010 04:47, Dave Chinner wrote: > 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? I tried 2.6.32.15. A few previous versions too, but all recent testing were with 2.6.32.15. So no, the fix is not in 2.6.32.y yet, since .15 is the latest currently. Too bad it'd be very difficult for me to do any bisection, -- users are not comfortable at all already due to all my experiments, -- f.e. their reports that are collecting for whole night stopped working completely since a few days ago (because every night I'm rebooting the machine). Yes it'd be nice to have this fixed in 2.6.32.y. And I promise I'll try to find time for bisection (but not promise the tries will be successful... ;). Definitely worth a try anyway. Thank you! /mjt _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs