From: Dave Jones <davej@redhat.com>
To: Alan Cox <alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>
Cc: Trond Myklebust <trond.myklebust@fys.uio.no>,
Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@intel.com>,
"Ananiev, Leonid I" <leonid.i.ananiev@intel.com>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <Linux-Kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Postal 56% waits for flock_lock_file_wait
Date: Mon, 2 Oct 2006 13:40:39 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20061002174039.GA17764@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1159811516.8907.38.camel@localhost.localdomain>
On Mon, Oct 02, 2006 at 06:51:56PM +0100, Alan Cox wrote:
> Ar Llu, 2006-10-02 am 13:11 -0400, ysgrifennodd Trond Myklebust:
> > Ext3 does not use flock() in order to lock its journal. The performance
> > issues that he is seeing may well be due to the journalling, but that
> > has nothing to do with flock_lock_file_wait.
>
> The ext3 journal also generally speaking improves many-writer
> performance as do the reservations so the claim seems odd on that basis
> too. Rerun the test on a gigabyte iRam or similar and you'll see where
> the non-media bottlenecks actually are
"or similar" maybe. The iRam is pretty much junk in my experience[*].
It rarely survives a mkfs, let alone sustained high throughput I/O.
(And yes, I did try multiple DIMMs, including ones which survive
memtest86 just fine).
Another "Boots Windows, ship it" QA disaster afaics.
Dave
[*] And from googling/talking with other owners, my experiences aren't unique.
--
http://www.codemonkey.org.uk
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2006-10-02 17:40 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 13+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2006-10-01 16:53 Postal 56% waits for flock_lock_file_wait Ananiev, Leonid I
2006-10-01 17:18 ` Trond Myklebust
2006-10-02 16:57 ` Tim Chen
2006-10-02 17:11 ` Trond Myklebust
2006-10-02 17:51 ` Alan Cox
2006-10-02 17:40 ` Dave Jones [this message]
2006-10-02 22:00 ` Alan Cox
2006-10-02 21:40 ` Dave Jones
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2006-09-30 17:26 Ananiev, Leonid I
2006-10-01 4:05 ` Trond Myklebust
2006-09-30 5:25 Ananiev, Leonid I
2006-09-30 15:05 ` Trond Myklebust
2006-09-29 15:36 Ananiev, Leonid I
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=20061002174039.GA17764@redhat.com \
--to=davej@redhat.com \
--cc=Linux-Kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk \
--cc=leonid.i.ananiev@intel.com \
--cc=tim.c.chen@intel.com \
--cc=trond.myklebust@fys.uio.no \
/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