Andreas Dilger wrote:
On Oct 03, 2007 06:42 -0400, Ric Wheeler wrote:
With 2 threads writing to the same directory, we instantly drop down to
234 files/sec.
Is this with HZ=250?
Yes - I assume that with HZ=1000 the batching would start to work again
since the penalty for batching would only b
On Oct 03, 2007 06:42 -0400, Ric Wheeler wrote:
> >>With 2 threads writing to the same directory, we instantly drop down to
> >>234 files/sec.
> >
> >Is this with HZ=250?
>
> Yes - I assume that with HZ=1000 the batching would start to work again
> since the penalty for batching would only be 1
Andreas Dilger wrote:
On Oct 02, 2007 08:57 -0400, Ric Wheeler wrote:
One thing that jumps out is that the way we currently batch synchronous
work loads into transactions does really horrible things to performance
for storage devices which have really low latency.
For example, one a mid-rang
On Oct 02, 2007 08:57 -0400, Ric Wheeler wrote:
> One thing that jumps out is that the way we currently batch synchronous
> work loads into transactions does really horrible things to performance
> for storage devices which have really low latency.
>
> For example, one a mid-range clariion box,
After several years of helping tune file systems for normal (ATA/S-ATA)
drives, we have been doing some performance work on ext3 & reiserfs on
disk arrays.
One thing that jumps out is that the way we currently batch synchronous
work loads into transactions does really horrible things to perf
