On Sun, Jan 4, 2009 at 7:59 PM, Mike McGrath <mmcgr...@redhat.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 3 Jan 2009, Matt Domsch wrote: > > > On Sun, Jan 04, 2009 at 03:02:55AM +0000, Kostas Georgiou wrote: > > > On Sat, Jan 03, 2009 at 06:32:38PM -0600, Matt Domsch wrote: > > > > > > > What ext3 journaling options are enabled (e.g. what does 'mount' > say)? > > > > If it's data=ordered (the default), that's OK. If it's data=journal, > > > > then all the data gets written twice (first to the journal, then the > > > > journal to the disk), which is really really slow, and the size of > the > > > > journal would really make a difference too. > > > > > > For an NFS server (assuming that you aren't exporting as async) > > > data=journal can give you better performance than anything else > > > actually. The NFS howto has a brief note in the performance section > > > about this. > > > > Yes, if the slowness is seen by applications on the client side of the > > NFS server, data=journal on the NFS server can help. > > > > Mike, your tests were all on the local file system, not across an NFS > > connection, right? > > > > Correct, though (obviously) we're seeing the slownees remotely as well. > > -Mike > > _______________________________________________ > Fedora-infrastructure-list mailing list > Fedora-infrastructure-list@redhat.com > https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-infrastructure-list > Hi, I've had no previous experience with such issues but here are my 2 cents IMHO if the slowness is seen locally as well as remotely then i would start thinking about filesystem options, or even consider a different filesystem. I think that you need to eliminate first the HW issues (raid, disk speed, etc) then look more into fs specific options wich were discussed in several previous emails
_______________________________________________ Fedora-infrastructure-list mailing list Fedora-infrastructure-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-infrastructure-list