Steve,
Thanks for the informative, and detailed response -- it really helps
to understand what might be happening. We're not mounting with noatime,
and it sounds like that would be a good first step.
Thanks!
-- scooter
Steven Whitehouse wrote:
Hi,
On Fri, 2009-10-09 at 10:57 -0700, Sc
On Mon, 12 Oct 2009 11:14:08 +0100, Steven Whitehouse wrote
> Hi,
>
> On Mon, 2009-10-12 at 13:07 +0300, Kaloyan Kovachev wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > On Fri, 09 Oct 2009 18:01:36 +0100, Steven Whitehouse wrote
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > The idea is that is should be self-tuning now, adjusting itself to th
Hi,
On Mon, 2009-10-12 at 13:07 +0300, Kaloyan Kovachev wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Fri, 09 Oct 2009 18:01:36 +0100, Steven Whitehouse wrote
> > Hi,
> >
> > The idea is that is should be self-tuning now, adjusting itself to the
> > conditions prevailing at the time. If there are any remaining
> > perfor
Hi,
On Fri, 09 Oct 2009 18:01:36 +0100, Steven Whitehouse wrote
> Hi,
>
> The idea is that is should be self-tuning now, adjusting itself to the
> conditions prevailing at the time. If there are any remaining
> performance issues though, we'd like to know so that they can be
> addressed,
>
I ha
Hi,
On Fri, 2009-10-09 at 10:57 -0700, Scooter Morris wrote:
> Steve,
> Thanks for the prompt reply. Like Kaerka, I'm running on
> large-memory servers and decreasing demote_secs from 300 to 20
> resulted in significant performance improvements because locks get
> freed much more quickly (I a
Steve,
Thanks for the prompt reply. Like Kaerka, I'm running on
large-memory servers and decreasing demote_secs from 300 to 20 resulted
in significant performance improvements because locks get freed much
more quickly (I assume), resulting in much better response. It could
certainly be th
If in gfs2 glocks are purged based upon memory constraints, what happens if
it is run on a box with large amounts of memory? i.e. RHEL5.x with 128gb
ram? We ended up having to move away from GFS2 due to serious performance
issues with this exact setup, and our performance issues were largely
cente
Hi,
On Fri, 2009-10-09 at 09:55 -0700, Scooter Morris wrote:
> Hi all,
> On RHEL 5.3/5.4(?) we had changed the value of demote_secs to
> significantly improve the performance of our gfs2 filesystem for certain
> tasks (notably rm -r on large directories). I recently noticed that
> that tun
Hi all,
On RHEL 5.3/5.4(?) we had changed the value of demote_secs to
significantly improve the performance of our gfs2 filesystem for certain
tasks (notably rm -r on large directories). I recently noticed that
that tuning value is no longer available (part of a recent update, or
part of 5
