On 17 August 2012 09:36, Kent Overstreet wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 10:07:29PM +1000, Joseph Glanville wrote:
>> There also seems to have been pretty severe performance regressions in
>> cache bypassed sequential I/O.
>> The newer code barely does 70mb/s sequential writes when
>> sequential_
On 17 August 2012 09:34, Kent Overstreet wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 06:51:15PM +1000, Joseph Glanville wrote:
>> Hi list, Kent,
>>
>> I caused a crash with the current 3.2 branch under Xen dom0.
>> By the look of it the swap LV caused the crash?
>
> Argh. Strange bug.
>
> I wonder if this is
t might be something simpler.
How are things configured? I see raid1 in the call stack, but there must
be something else too because raid1 doesn't call bio_pair_split().
Just to let you guys know that I'm currently compiling the bcache-3.2
branch as I type this and will be testing bcach
figured? I see raid1 in the call stack, but there must
be something else too because raid1 doesn't call bio_pair_split().
Just to let you guys know that I'm currently compiling the bcache-3.2
branch as I type this and will be testing bcache on a Xen Dom0 test bed
over the next few weeks
On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 10:07:29PM +1000, Joseph Glanville wrote:
> There also seems to have been pretty severe performance regressions in
> cache bypassed sequential I/O.
> The newer code barely does 70mb/s sequential writes when
> sequential_cuttoff is set to 4M however it does around 300mb/s whe
On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 06:51:15PM +1000, Joseph Glanville wrote:
> Hi list, Kent,
>
> I caused a crash with the current 3.2 branch under Xen dom0.
> By the look of it the swap LV caused the crash?
Argh. Strange bug.
I wonder if this is related to a bug someone on lkml noticed the other
day in m
I am able to trigger this reliably and I have also confirmed it
doesn't occur with the version of the code we are running. (which
unfortunately I don't have the commit from. :( )
In my wisdom I imported the bcache code as a big single commit into our tree.
I can take the diff of a file for you to t
Hi list, Kent,
I caused a crash with the current 3.2 branch under Xen dom0.
By the look of it the swap LV caused the crash?
Joseph.
[ 1103.762081] kernel BUG at fs/bio.c:420!
[ 1103.762172] invalid opcode: [#1] SMP
[ 1103.762260] CPU 10
[ 1103.762270] Modules linked in: ib_srpt(O) scst_vdis
On 13 July 2012 19:01, Kent Overstreet wrote:
> Argh, weird.
>
> That kinda sounds like it'd be a massive pain for me to reproduce too...
>
> So you're only seeing errors with Xen, correct?
Yes, it seems find under other workloads. I will try dropping LVM out
of it and see how that goes.
>
> Pro
Argh, weird.
That kinda sounds like it'd be a massive pain for me to reproduce too...
So you're only seeing errors with Xen, correct?
Probably have to figure out either what xen_blkback is doing different
from everything else (in which case we should be able to reproduce the
errors without it) o
On 10 July 2012 03:07, Kent Overstreet wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 10, 2012 at 02:32:36AM +1000, Joseph Glanville wrote:
>> On 10 July 2012 01:57, Kent Overstreet wrote:
>> > On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 10:08:51PM +1000, Joseph Glanville wrote:
>> >> Hi Kent and list,
>> >>
>> >> I have pulled down the late
On Tue, Jul 10, 2012 at 02:32:36AM +1000, Joseph Glanville wrote:
> On 10 July 2012 01:57, Kent Overstreet wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 10:08:51PM +1000, Joseph Glanville wrote:
> >> Hi Kent and list,
> >>
> >> I have pulled down the latest bcache code and have been playing around
> >> with
On 10 July 2012 01:57, Kent Overstreet wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 10:08:51PM +1000, Joseph Glanville wrote:
>> Hi Kent and list,
>>
>> I have pulled down the latest bcache code and have been playing around
>> with it when I noticed that I am having issues starting Xen virtual
>> machines usi
On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 10:08:51PM +1000, Joseph Glanville wrote:
> Hi Kent and list,
>
> I have pulled down the latest bcache code and have been playing around
> with it when I noticed that I am having issues starting Xen virtual
> machines using bcache + LVM.
> What is interesting is the QEMU st
Hi Kent and list,
I have pulled down the latest bcache code and have been playing around
with it when I noticed that I am having issues starting Xen virtual
machines using bcache + LVM.
What is interesting is the QEMU storage emulation in userspace is able
to access the device fine however blkback
15 matches
Mail list logo
