On 04/01/16 03:01, Dave Chinner wrote:
> Can you go back to your original kernel, and lower nr_requests to 8?
Sure, did that and as expected it didn't help much. Under prolonged stress
it was actually even a bit worse than writeback throttling. IMHO that's not
really surprising either, since
On 04/01/16 03:01, Dave Chinner wrote:
> Can you go back to your original kernel, and lower nr_requests to 8?
Sure, did that and as expected it didn't help much. Under prolonged stress
it was actually even a bit worse than writeback throttling. IMHO that's not
really surprising either, since
On 04/01/2016 12:27 AM, Dave Chinner wrote:
On Thu, Mar 31, 2016 at 09:25:33PM -0600, Jens Axboe wrote:
On 03/31/2016 06:46 PM, Dave Chinner wrote:
virtio in guest, XFS direct IO -> no-op -> scsi in host.
That has write back caching enabled on the guest, correct?
No. It uses
On 04/01/2016 12:27 AM, Dave Chinner wrote:
On Thu, Mar 31, 2016 at 09:25:33PM -0600, Jens Axboe wrote:
On 03/31/2016 06:46 PM, Dave Chinner wrote:
virtio in guest, XFS direct IO -> no-op -> scsi in host.
That has write back caching enabled on the guest, correct?
No. It uses
On 04/01/2016 12:16 AM, Dave Chinner wrote:
On Thu, Mar 31, 2016 at 09:39:25PM -0600, Jens Axboe wrote:
On 03/31/2016 09:29 PM, Jens Axboe wrote:
I can't seem to reproduce this at all. On an nvme device, I get a
fairly steady 60K/sec file creation rate, and we're nowhere near
being IO bound.
On 04/01/2016 12:16 AM, Dave Chinner wrote:
On Thu, Mar 31, 2016 at 09:39:25PM -0600, Jens Axboe wrote:
On 03/31/2016 09:29 PM, Jens Axboe wrote:
I can't seem to reproduce this at all. On an nvme device, I get a
fairly steady 60K/sec file creation rate, and we're nowhere near
being IO bound.
On Thu, Mar 31, 2016 at 09:25:33PM -0600, Jens Axboe wrote:
> On 03/31/2016 06:46 PM, Dave Chinner wrote:
> >>>virtio in guest, XFS direct IO -> no-op -> scsi in host.
> >>
> >>That has write back caching enabled on the guest, correct?
> >
> >No. It uses virtio,cache=none (that's the "XFS Direct
On Thu, Mar 31, 2016 at 09:25:33PM -0600, Jens Axboe wrote:
> On 03/31/2016 06:46 PM, Dave Chinner wrote:
> >>>virtio in guest, XFS direct IO -> no-op -> scsi in host.
> >>
> >>That has write back caching enabled on the guest, correct?
> >
> >No. It uses virtio,cache=none (that's the "XFS Direct
On Thu, Mar 31, 2016 at 09:39:25PM -0600, Jens Axboe wrote:
> On 03/31/2016 09:29 PM, Jens Axboe wrote:
> >>>I can't seem to reproduce this at all. On an nvme device, I get a
> >>>fairly steady 60K/sec file creation rate, and we're nowhere near
> >>>being IO bound. So the throttling has no effect
On Thu, Mar 31, 2016 at 09:39:25PM -0600, Jens Axboe wrote:
> On 03/31/2016 09:29 PM, Jens Axboe wrote:
> >>>I can't seem to reproduce this at all. On an nvme device, I get a
> >>>fairly steady 60K/sec file creation rate, and we're nowhere near
> >>>being IO bound. So the throttling has no effect
On Thu, Mar 31, 2016 at 09:29:30PM -0600, Jens Axboe wrote:
> On 03/31/2016 06:56 PM, Dave Chinner wrote:
> >I'm not changing the host kernels - it's a production machine and so
> >it runs long uptime testing of stable kernels. (e.g. catch slow
> >memory leaks, etc). So if you've disabled
On Thu, Mar 31, 2016 at 09:29:30PM -0600, Jens Axboe wrote:
> On 03/31/2016 06:56 PM, Dave Chinner wrote:
> >I'm not changing the host kernels - it's a production machine and so
> >it runs long uptime testing of stable kernels. (e.g. catch slow
> >memory leaks, etc). So if you've disabled
On 03/31/2016 09:29 PM, Jens Axboe wrote:
I can't seem to reproduce this at all. On an nvme device, I get a
fairly steady 60K/sec file creation rate, and we're nowhere near
being IO bound. So the throttling has no effect at all.
That's too slow to show the stalls - your likely concurrency
On 03/31/2016 09:29 PM, Jens Axboe wrote:
I can't seem to reproduce this at all. On an nvme device, I get a
fairly steady 60K/sec file creation rate, and we're nowhere near
being IO bound. So the throttling has no effect at all.
That's too slow to show the stalls - your likely concurrency
On 03/31/2016 09:29 PM, Jens Axboe wrote:
I'm not changing the host kernels - it's a production machine and so
it runs long uptime testing of stable kernels. (e.g. catch slow
memory leaks, etc). So if you've disabled throttling in the guest, I
can't test the throttling changes.
Right, that'd
On 03/31/2016 09:29 PM, Jens Axboe wrote:
I'm not changing the host kernels - it's a production machine and so
it runs long uptime testing of stable kernels. (e.g. catch slow
memory leaks, etc). So if you've disabled throttling in the guest, I
can't test the throttling changes.
Right, that'd
On 03/31/2016 06:56 PM, Dave Chinner wrote:
On Thu, Mar 31, 2016 at 10:21:04AM -0600, Jens Axboe wrote:
On 03/31/2016 08:29 AM, Jens Axboe wrote:
What I see in these performance dips is the XFS transaction
subsystem stalling *completely* - instead of running at a steady
state of around 350,000
On 03/31/2016 06:56 PM, Dave Chinner wrote:
On Thu, Mar 31, 2016 at 10:21:04AM -0600, Jens Axboe wrote:
On 03/31/2016 08:29 AM, Jens Axboe wrote:
What I see in these performance dips is the XFS transaction
subsystem stalling *completely* - instead of running at a steady
state of around 350,000
On 03/31/2016 06:46 PM, Dave Chinner wrote:
On Thu, Mar 31, 2016 at 08:29:35AM -0600, Jens Axboe wrote:
On 03/31/2016 02:24 AM, Dave Chinner wrote:
On Wed, Mar 30, 2016 at 09:07:48AM -0600, Jens Axboe wrote:
Hi,
This patchset isn't as much a final solution, as it's demonstration
of what I
On 03/31/2016 06:46 PM, Dave Chinner wrote:
On Thu, Mar 31, 2016 at 08:29:35AM -0600, Jens Axboe wrote:
On 03/31/2016 02:24 AM, Dave Chinner wrote:
On Wed, Mar 30, 2016 at 09:07:48AM -0600, Jens Axboe wrote:
Hi,
This patchset isn't as much a final solution, as it's demonstration
of what I
On Thu, Mar 31, 2016 at 10:09:56PM +, Holger Hoffstätte wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> Jens mentioned on Twitter I should post my experience here as well,
> so here we go.
>
> I've backported this series (incl. updates) to stable-4.4.x - not too
> difficult, minus the NVM part which I don't need anyway
On Thu, Mar 31, 2016 at 10:09:56PM +, Holger Hoffstätte wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> Jens mentioned on Twitter I should post my experience here as well,
> so here we go.
>
> I've backported this series (incl. updates) to stable-4.4.x - not too
> difficult, minus the NVM part which I don't need anyway
On Thu, Mar 31, 2016 at 10:21:04AM -0600, Jens Axboe wrote:
> On 03/31/2016 08:29 AM, Jens Axboe wrote:
> >>What I see in these performance dips is the XFS transaction
> >>subsystem stalling *completely* - instead of running at a steady
> >>state of around 350,000 transactions/s, there are *zero*
On Thu, Mar 31, 2016 at 10:21:04AM -0600, Jens Axboe wrote:
> On 03/31/2016 08:29 AM, Jens Axboe wrote:
> >>What I see in these performance dips is the XFS transaction
> >>subsystem stalling *completely* - instead of running at a steady
> >>state of around 350,000 transactions/s, there are *zero*
On Thu, Mar 31, 2016 at 08:29:35AM -0600, Jens Axboe wrote:
> On 03/31/2016 02:24 AM, Dave Chinner wrote:
> >On Wed, Mar 30, 2016 at 09:07:48AM -0600, Jens Axboe wrote:
> >>Hi,
> >>
> >>This patchset isn't as much a final solution, as it's demonstration
> >>of what I believe is a huge issue. Since
On Thu, Mar 31, 2016 at 08:29:35AM -0600, Jens Axboe wrote:
> On 03/31/2016 02:24 AM, Dave Chinner wrote:
> >On Wed, Mar 30, 2016 at 09:07:48AM -0600, Jens Axboe wrote:
> >>Hi,
> >>
> >>This patchset isn't as much a final solution, as it's demonstration
> >>of what I believe is a huge issue. Since
Hi,
Jens mentioned on Twitter I should post my experience here as well,
so here we go.
I've backported this series (incl. updates) to stable-4.4.x - not too
difficult, minus the NVM part which I don't need anyway - and have been
running it for the past few days without any problem whatsoever,
Hi,
Jens mentioned on Twitter I should post my experience here as well,
so here we go.
I've backported this series (incl. updates) to stable-4.4.x - not too
difficult, minus the NVM part which I don't need anyway - and have been
running it for the past few days without any problem whatsoever,
On 03/31/2016 08:29 AM, Jens Axboe wrote:
What I see in these performance dips is the XFS transaction
subsystem stalling *completely* - instead of running at a steady
state of around 350,000 transactions/s, there are *zero*
transactions running for periods of up to ten seconds. This
co-incides
On 03/31/2016 08:29 AM, Jens Axboe wrote:
What I see in these performance dips is the XFS transaction
subsystem stalling *completely* - instead of running at a steady
state of around 350,000 transactions/s, there are *zero*
transactions running for periods of up to ten seconds. This
co-incides
On 03/31/2016 02:24 AM, Dave Chinner wrote:
On Wed, Mar 30, 2016 at 09:07:48AM -0600, Jens Axboe wrote:
Hi,
This patchset isn't as much a final solution, as it's demonstration
of what I believe is a huge issue. Since the dawn of time, our
background buffered writeback has sucked. When we do
On 03/31/2016 02:24 AM, Dave Chinner wrote:
On Wed, Mar 30, 2016 at 09:07:48AM -0600, Jens Axboe wrote:
Hi,
This patchset isn't as much a final solution, as it's demonstration
of what I believe is a huge issue. Since the dawn of time, our
background buffered writeback has sucked. When we do
On Wed, Mar 30, 2016 at 09:07:48AM -0600, Jens Axboe wrote:
> Hi,
>
> This patchset isn't as much a final solution, as it's demonstration
> of what I believe is a huge issue. Since the dawn of time, our
> background buffered writeback has sucked. When we do background
> buffered writeback, it
On Wed, Mar 30, 2016 at 09:07:48AM -0600, Jens Axboe wrote:
> Hi,
>
> This patchset isn't as much a final solution, as it's demonstration
> of what I believe is a huge issue. Since the dawn of time, our
> background buffered writeback has sucked. When we do background
> buffered writeback, it
Hi,
This patchset isn't as much a final solution, as it's demonstration
of what I believe is a huge issue. Since the dawn of time, our
background buffered writeback has sucked. When we do background
buffered writeback, it should have little impact on foreground
activity. That's the definition of
Hi,
This patchset isn't as much a final solution, as it's demonstration
of what I believe is a huge issue. Since the dawn of time, our
background buffered writeback has sucked. When we do background
buffered writeback, it should have little impact on foreground
activity. That's the definition of
36 matches
Mail list logo
