From: Andrew Morton <akpm@zip.com.au>
To: "DICKENS,CARY (HP-Loveland,ex2)" <cary_dickens2@hp.com>
Cc: "'linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org'" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
"HABBINGA,ERIK (HP-Loveland,ex1)" <erik_habbinga@hp.com>
Subject: Re: 2.4.10 still slow compared to 2.4.5pre1
Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2001 14:36:31 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <3BB0F8DF.21FC75F0@zip.com.au> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <C5C45572D968D411A1B500D0B74FF4A80418D549@xfc01.fc.hp.com>
"DICKENS,CARY (HP-Loveland,ex2)" wrote:
>
> We have run 2.4.10 under a heavy nfs load and kswapd now appears to be under
> control ( never went above 88.5%cpu and then only for a short time), but the
> nfs performance is about 45% of what it had been for the 2.4.5pre1 kernel.
> The response time grows steadily throughout the test until the test goes
> invalid.
>
> Hardware:
> 4 processors, 4GB ram
> 45 fibre channel drives, set up in hardware RAID 0/1
> 2 direct Gigabit Ethernet connections between SPEC SFS prime client and
> system under test
> reiserfs
> all NFS filesystems exported with sync,no_wdelay to insure O_SYNC writes to
> storage
> NFS v3 UDP
>
> I can provide top logs if anyone would like to see what is happening at any
> particular time. Also, if you would like to see some results from a
> particular test, please let me know what test it would be.
>
With a synchronous NFS export, I'd expect the disk throughput
to be lowered to such an extent that VM issues were not
significant in throughput. But you have been seeing kswapd
problems so hmmm...
Conceivably this is a networking problem, and not an FS/VM
problem. There were significant changes to the softirq
handling between 2.4.5 and 2.4.10, for example.
Could I suggest that you split these variables apart? Perform
some comparative FS/VM testing between the kernels, and then
some comparative network testing?
Is it possible to run the SFS clients on the same machine,
over loopback?
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2001-09-25 21:36 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2001-09-25 21:22 2.4.10 still slow compared to 2.4.5pre1 DICKENS,CARY (HP-Loveland,ex2)
2001-09-25 21:36 ` Andrew Morton [this message]
2001-09-25 21:56 ` Andrea Arcangeli
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2001-09-25 22:06 DICKENS,CARY (HP-Loveland,ex2)
2001-09-26 0:44 DICKENS,CARY (HP-Loveland,ex2)
2001-09-26 1:58 ` Andrea Arcangeli
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=3BB0F8DF.21FC75F0@zip.com.au \
--to=akpm@zip.com.au \
--cc=cary_dickens2@hp.com \
--cc=erik_habbinga@hp.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
/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