From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>
To: Jan Kasprzak <kas@fi.muni.cz>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-xfs@oss.sgi.com
Subject: Re: XFS lstat() _very_ slow on SMP
Date: Sat, 28 May 2005 10:11:23 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20050528091123.GA19330@infradead.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20050518174530.GF19173@fi.muni.cz>
On Wed, May 18, 2005 at 07:45:30PM +0200, Jan Kasprzak wrote:
> Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> : On Mon, May 16, 2005 at 06:25:06PM +0200, Jan Kasprzak wrote:
> : > Hi all,
> : >
> : > I have a big XFS volume on my fileserver, and I have noticed that
> : > making an incremental backup of this volume is _very_ slow. The incremental
> : > backup essentially checks mtime of all files on this volume, and it
> : > takes ~4ms of _system_ time (i.e. no iowait or what) to do a lstat().
> :
> : Thanks a lot for the report, I'll investigate what's going on once I get
> : a little time. (Early next week I hope)
>
> Hmm, I feel like I am hunting ghosts - after a fresh reboot
> of the 4-CPU server I did four runs of 128*128*128 files with various
> sizes of the underlying filesystem (in order to eliminate the volume
> size as a problematic factor). I've got the following numbers:
>
> Volume size create time find -mtime +1000 cost of lseek()
> 5GB 55m77 real 52m51 sys 1m1 real 0m53 sys 19 usecs
> 25GB 58m15 real 55m27 sys 83m47 real 82m15 sys 2171 usecs (!!!!!!)
> 125GB 67m0 real 61m35 sys 0m55 real 0m48 sys 18 usecs
> 625GB 68m30 real 62m38 sys 0m57 real 0m49 sys 18 usecs
>
> So the results are probably not dependent on the volume size,
> but on something totally random (such as which cpu the command
> ends up running on or something like that), or on the system uptime
> (and implied fragmentation of memory or what).
>
> I've tried to re-run the same test the next day (i.e. on
> server with longer uptime), but the server crashed - my test script
> ended locked up somewhere in kernel (probably holding some locks),
> and then other processes started to lock up after accessing the file
> system (my top(1) was running OK, but when I tried to "touch newfile"
> in another shell, it locked up as well). So I had to reset this server
> again.
>
> I am not really sure where exactly the problem is. I think
> it is related to XFS, big memory of this server (26 GB), four CPUs,
> and maybe even the x86_64 architecture. I was not able to reproduce
> the problem on the same HW using ext3fs, and the problem is also
> a magnitude smaller on 2-way system with 4GB of RAM. Maybe I should
> try to reproduce this on our Altix box to eliminate the x86_64 as the
> possible source of problems.
>
> I use the attached "bigtree.pl" to create the directory structure
> ("time ./bigtree.pl /new-volume 3 128" for 128*128*128 files), and then
> "strace -c find /new-volume -type f -mtime +1000 -print" (the numbers
> without strace are almost the same, so strace is not a problem here).
I couldn't reproduce the odd case here. Could you try to get some profiling
data with oprofile for the odd and one of the normal cases?
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2005-05-28 9:11 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2005-05-16 16:25 XFS lstat() _very_ slow on SMP Jan Kasprzak
2005-05-18 14:02 ` Christoph Hellwig
2005-05-18 17:45 ` Jan Kasprzak
2005-05-28 9:11 ` Christoph Hellwig [this message]
2005-05-29 18:37 ` Jan Kasprzak
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=20050528091123.GA19330@infradead.org \
--to=hch@infradead.org \
--cc=kas@fi.muni.cz \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-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