On Fri, 12 Jan 2007, Nick Piggin wrote:
> Ah yes... Can't you force it on if you have a NUMA complied kernel?
But it wont do anything since it only comes into action if you have an off
node allocation. If you run a NUMA kernel on an SMP system then you only
have one node. There is no way that a
Christoph Lameter wrote:
On Thu, 11 Jan 2007, Nick Piggin wrote:
You're not turning on zone_reclaim, by any chance, are you?
It is not a NUMA system so zone reclaim is not available.
Ah yes... Can't you force it on if you have a NUMA complied kernel?
zone reclaim was
already in 2.6.16.
On Thu, 11 Jan 2007, Nick Piggin wrote:
> You're not turning on zone_reclaim, by any chance, are you?
It is not a NUMA system so zone reclaim is not available. zone reclaim was
already in 2.6.16.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message t
David Chinner wrote:
On Thu, Jan 11, 2007 at 12:08:10PM +1100, Nick Piggin wrote:
So, what I've attached is three files which have both
'vmstat 5' output and 'iostat 5 |grep dm-' output in them.
Ahh, sorry to be unclear, I meant:
cat /proc/vmstat > pre
run_test
cat /proc/vmstat > post
Thanks. BTW. You didn't cc this to the list, so I won't either in case
you want it kept private.
David Chinner wrote:
On Thu, Jan 11, 2007 at 12:08:10PM +1100, Nick Piggin wrote:
Ahh, sorry to be unclear, I meant:
cat /proc/vmstat > pre
run_test
cat /proc/vmstat > post
6 files attached
On Wed, Jan 10, 2007 at 05:40:26PM -0800, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> On Thu, 11 Jan 2007, David Chinner wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Jan 10, 2007 at 04:43:36PM -0800, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> > > You are comparing a debian 2.6.18 standard kernel with your tuned version
> > > of 2.6.20-rc3. There may be
On Thu, 11 Jan 2007, David Chinner wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 10, 2007 at 04:43:36PM -0800, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> > You are comparing a debian 2.6.18 standard kernel with your tuned version
> > of 2.6.20-rc3. There may be a lot of differences. Could you get us the
> > config? Or use the same conf
On Thu, Jan 11, 2007 at 12:08:10PM +1100, Nick Piggin wrote:
> David Chinner wrote:
> >Sure, but that doesn't really show the how erratic the per-filesystem
> >throughput is because the test I'm running is PCI-X bus limited in
> >it's throughput at about 750MB/s. Each dm device is capable of about
On Thu, Jan 11, 2007 at 10:08:55AM +1100, David Chinner wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 10, 2007 at 03:04:15PM -0800, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> > On Thu, 11 Jan 2007, David Chinner wrote:
> >
> > > The performance and smoothness is fully restored on 2.6.20-rc3
> > > by setting dirty_ratio down to 10 (from t
David Chinner wrote:
On Thu, Jan 11, 2007 at 10:13:55AM +1100, Nick Piggin wrote:
David Chinner wrote:
On Wed, Jan 10, 2007 at 03:04:15PM -0800, Christoph Lameter wrote:
On Thu, 11 Jan 2007, David Chinner wrote:
The performance and smoothness is fully restored on 2.6.20-rc3
by setting
On Wed, Jan 10, 2007 at 04:43:36PM -0800, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> You are comparing a debian 2.6.18 standard kernel with your tuned version
> of 2.6.20-rc3. There may be a lot of differences. Could you get us the
> config? Or use the same config file and build 2.6.20/18 the same way.
I took t
You are comparing a debian 2.6.18 standard kernel with your tuned version
of 2.6.20-rc3. There may be a lot of differences. Could you get us the
config? Or use the same config file and build 2.6.20/18 the same way.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the
On Thu, Jan 11, 2007 at 10:13:55AM +1100, Nick Piggin wrote:
> David Chinner wrote:
> >On Wed, Jan 10, 2007 at 03:04:15PM -0800, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> >
> >>On Thu, 11 Jan 2007, David Chinner wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>The performance and smoothness is fully restored on 2.6.20-rc3
> >>>by setting d
On Wed, Jan 10, 2007 at 03:12:02PM -0800, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> On Thu, 11 Jan 2007, David Chinner wrote:
>
> > Well, pdflush appears to be doing very little on both 2.6.18 and
> > 2.6.20-rc3. In both cases kswapd is consuming 10-20% of a CPU and
> > all of the pdflush threads combined (I've
David Chinner wrote:
On Wed, Jan 10, 2007 at 03:04:15PM -0800, Christoph Lameter wrote:
On Thu, 11 Jan 2007, David Chinner wrote:
The performance and smoothness is fully restored on 2.6.20-rc3
by setting dirty_ratio down to 10 (from the default 40), so
something in the VM is not working as w
On Thu, 11 Jan 2007, David Chinner wrote:
> Well, pdflush appears to be doing very little on both 2.6.18 and
> 2.6.20-rc3. In both cases kswapd is consuming 10-20% of a CPU and
> all of the pdflush threads combined (I've seen up to 7 active at
> once) use maybe 1-2% of cpu time. This occurs regard
On Wed, Jan 10, 2007 at 03:04:15PM -0800, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> On Thu, 11 Jan 2007, David Chinner wrote:
>
> > The performance and smoothness is fully restored on 2.6.20-rc3
> > by setting dirty_ratio down to 10 (from the default 40), so
> > something in the VM is not working as well as it u
On Thu, 11 Jan 2007, David Chinner wrote:
> The performance and smoothness is fully restored on 2.6.20-rc3
> by setting dirty_ratio down to 10 (from the default 40), so
> something in the VM is not working as well as it used to
dirty_background_ratio is left as is at 10? So you gain performan
Discussion thread:
http://oss.sgi.com/archives/xfs/2007-01/msg00052.html
Short story is that buffered writes slowed down by 20-30%
between 2.6.18 and 2.6.19 and became a lot more erratic.
Writing a single file to a single filesystem doesn't appear
to have major problems, but when writing a file
19 matches
Mail list logo
