public inbox for linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@mit.edu>
To: Tong Li <tongli@cs.duke.edu>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Bursty I/O in ext3
Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2006 10:29:53 -0500	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20060314152952.GA5644@thunk.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.4.62.0603140150420.1352@eenie.cs.duke.edu>

On Tue, Mar 14, 2006 at 02:32:17AM -0500, Tong Li wrote:
> I'm running kernbench (make -j 128 on a kernel source) back to back 
> multiple times on an SMP. Among every 10 runs, there's always at least one 
> run that has a run time around 40% longer than the other runs. (Before 
> kernbench starts timing, it does a sync.) 'vmstat 1' indicates that the 
> longer runs always have a couple of 1-sec intervals during which there are 
> 10 times more block-outs (bo field) than the average traffic in the rest 
> of the run, and during these intervals, many cc1 processes are in the D 
> state. My file system is ext3 and all the things like journal commit 
> interval, pdflush interval, etc. have the default values.
> 
> I'm trying to understand why such variability occurs. I tested the same 
> thing with ext2 and did not see any variability. So I'm thinking about two 
> things: (1) for some reason, ext3/jbd occasionally issues a large volume 
> of bursty writes to the disk (but why does it occur just sometimes, not 
> always?), and (2) when there are bursty writes, the block device driver is 
> not able to handle them, causing I/O waits. But I don't really have a 
> clear understanding of the problem here...

If you are using an e2fsprogs older than version 1.38, you should try
expanding the journal size from the default of 32M to 128M; with the
filesystem unmounted do:

	tune2fs -O ^has_journal /dev/hdXX
	tune2fs -O has_journal -J journal_size=128 /dev/hdXX

If the journal gets full and the filesystem has to do a forced journal
truncate, that can cause I/O's to stall and writes can thus get bursty
with performance becoming nasty as a result.  Increasing the journal
size can avoid this, at the cost of potentially having more disk
buffers be pinned in memory, thus increasing the overhead of
unswappable kernel memory.

Regards,

						- Ted

  reply	other threads:[~2006-03-14 15:29 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2006-03-14  7:32 Bursty I/O in ext3 Tong Li
2006-03-14 15:29 ` Theodore Ts'o [this message]
2006-03-14 21:51   ` Tong Li
2006-03-14 16:46 ` Avishay Traeger
2006-03-14 21:52   ` Tong Li

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=20060314152952.GA5644@thunk.org \
    --to=tytso@mit.edu \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=tongli@cs.duke.edu \
    /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