From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from lists.gentoo.org ([140.105.134.102] helo=robin.gentoo.org) by nuthatch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1GIZWc-0002y4-D1 for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Wed, 30 Aug 2006 23:31:14 +0000 Received: from robin.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.7/8.13.6) with SMTP id k7UNSnIM000227; Wed, 30 Aug 2006 23:28:49 GMT Received: from lucidpixels.com (lucidpixels.com [66.45.37.187]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.7/8.13.6) with ESMTP id k7UNPSCF027299 for ; Wed, 30 Aug 2006 23:25:29 GMT Received: by lucidpixels.com (Postfix, from userid 1001) id 207BD609B323; Wed, 30 Aug 2006 19:25:27 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by lucidpixels.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1D2B61602A220 for ; Wed, 30 Aug 2006 19:25:27 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2006 19:25:27 -0400 (EDT) From: Justin Piszcz X-X-Sender: jpiszcz@p34.internal.lan To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] XFS FileSystem - Slow Writes In-Reply-To: <44F61DF3.3050702@paradise.net.nz> Message-ID: References: <1156824235.2843.14.camel@neuromancer.home.net> <44F3DA9F.8080700@paradise.net.nz> <1156833430.2843.18.camel@neuromancer.home.net> <44F4E8A6.2020600@paradise.net.nz> <44F61DF3.3050702@paradise.net.nz> Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-user@gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed X-Archives-Salt: ad68622d-afb8-4b23-aa76-fdfe964a6b65 X-Archives-Hash: 01b7bfdff81c25f8f0cd22d803057719 On Thu, 31 Aug 2006, Mark Kirkwood wrote: > Mark Kirkwood wrote: >> Ow Mun Heng wrote: >>> >>> I've already updated it to the latest based on the suspend2 version. >>> $uname -r >>> 2.6.17-suspend2-r4 >>> >>> $eix xfsprogs >>> Available versions: 2.7.3 2.7.11 2.8.10 >>> Installed: 2.8.10 >>> >>> >>> If not mistaken, the issue, (or barriers if not mistaken) was introduced >>> in the 2.6.17 kernel series. >>> the 2.6.16 series wasn't affected. (I could be wrong, I don't have net >>> access so, I can't verify) >>> >> >> Right - as it happens I'm doing an update today, so will let you know if >> I see any write performance change. >> > > > FWIW, I've updated to 2.6.17 and I don't see any change in performance at all > (215Mb/s reads and 100Mb/s writes). > > Now I'm on the standard source tree: > > $ uname -r > 2.6.17-gentoo-r7 > > $ eix xfsprogs > Available versions: 2.7.3 2.7.11 ~2.8.10 > Installed: 2.7.11 > > which may be a factor. > > The other thing I notice is that my filesystems are all under 50%, whereas > your troublesome one was at 80%or so: > > $ df -m > Filesystem 1M-blocks Used Available Use% Mounted on > /dev/md/2 529 134 395 26% / > /dev/md/0 129 10 120 8% /boot > /dev/md/3 3911 32 3880 1% /tmp > /dev/md/4 3911 175 3737 5% /var > /dev/md/5 19537 3008 16530 16% /usr > /dev/md/6 19537 2668 16870 14% /home > /dev/md/7 104841 25682 79160 25% /data0 > > I might try writing a few big files to fill one of 'em up and see if it makes > any difference! > > Cheers > > Mark > -- > gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list > You can also check your fragmentation, xfs_db -c frag /dev/.. and defrag it with xfs_fsir .. -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list