From: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
To: Michael Tokarev <mjt@tls.msk.ru>
Cc: Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: dramatic I/O slowdown after upgrading 2.6.32->3.0
Date: Fri, 6 Apr 2012 01:29:13 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20120405232913.GA6640@quack.suse.cz> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4F75E46E.2000503@msgid.tls.msk.ru>
Hello,
On Fri 30-03-12 20:50:54, Michael Tokarev wrote:
> I'm observing a dramatic slowdown of several hosts after upgrading
> from 2.6.32.y to 3.0.x i686 kernels (in both cases from kernel.org,
> on both cases the last version is relatively latest).
>
> On 2.6.32 everything is fast. On 3.0 the same operations which goes
> instantly takes ages to complete.
>
> For example, out of observed actual differences, munin-graph process
> on 2.6.32 completes in a few secs writing to a ext4 /var filesystem.
> On 3.0, the same process takes about a minute and keeps all 5 hard
> drives (md raid5) 99% busy all this time.
>
> apt-get upgrade (from debian/ubuntu) first reads current package
> status database. This process takes about 3 secs on a freshly
> booted 2.6.32, and about 40 seconds on a freshly booted 3.0,
> again, keeping all 5 hdds 99% busy (according to iostat).
>
> Only the kernel is different, all the rest is exactly the same.
> I can reboot into 2.6.32 again after running 3.0, and the system
> is fast again.
>
> The machine is relatively old, it is an IBM xSeries 345 server
> with some 2.66GHz Xeon (stepping 9) CPU, a Broadcom chipset, an
> LSI Logic / Symbios Logic 53c1030 PCI-X Fusion-MPT Dual Ultra320
> SCSI controller and 5x74Gb pSCSI drives. But it is obviously not
> a reason for it to run _this_ slow... ;)
>
> There's another machine here, with an AMD BE-2400 CPU, nVidia MCP55
> chipset, AHA-3940U2x pSCSI controller and a set of 74Gb HDDs. It
> shows similar sympthoms after upgrading from 2.6.32 to 3.0 -- every
> I/O becomes very slow with all HDDs being busy for long periods.
>
> What's the way to debug this issue?
Identifying a particular kernel where things regresses might help as Jon
wrote. Just from top of my head, 3.0 had a bug in device plugging so
readahead was broken. I think it was addressed in -stable series so you
might want to check out latest 3.0-stable.
Honza
--
Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
SUSE Labs, CR
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2012-04-05 23:29 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 14+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2012-03-30 16:50 dramatic I/O slowdown after upgrading 2.6.32->3.0 Michael Tokarev
2012-04-02 16:58 ` Jonathan Corbet
2012-04-05 23:29 ` Jan Kara [this message]
2012-04-06 4:45 ` Michael Tokarev
2012-04-10 2:26 ` Dave Chinner
2012-04-10 6:00 ` dramatic I/O slowdown after upgrading 2.6.38->3.0+ Michael Tokarev
2012-04-10 15:13 ` Jan Kara
2012-04-10 19:25 ` Suresh Jayaraman
2012-04-10 19:51 ` Jan Kara
2012-04-11 0:20 ` Henrique de Moraes Holschuh
2012-04-11 9:40 ` Michael Tokarev
2012-04-11 17:19 ` Mike Christie
2012-04-11 17:55 ` Michael Tokarev
2012-04-11 18:28 ` Jan Kara
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=20120405232913.GA6640@quack.suse.cz \
--to=jack@suse.cz \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mjt@tls.msk.ru \
/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;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).