On Fri, 20 Sep 2013 01:37:20 +0200
m...@netbsd.org (Emmanuel Dreyfus) wrote:
> Greg Oster wrote:
>
> > Any additional load you have on the RAID set while rebuilding
> > parity is just going to make things worse... What you really want
> > to do is turn on the parity logging stuff, and reduce th
Edgar Fuß wrote:
> How often do these log flushes occur?
On a 6.1 kernel with RAIDOUTSTANDING=800 and -o log. Stress test raises load
to around 10.
> During the stess phase, what does
> iostat -D -x -w 1
> show for the raid and for the components, especially in the time column?
Here is
On Fri, 20 Sep 2013, Mark Davies wrote:
> When it was in the above state pdscn was reporting around 95000,
> pdfre was 0. With just one ftp going both pdfre and pdscn report
> values in the range 7000 - 14000
Actually the figures for "just one ftp" were from shortly after I
killed off the othe
On Fri, 20 Sep 2013, Lars Heidieker wrote:
> Can you see which kernel thread causes high CPU usage by showing
> lwps in top? (t toggles those modes)
149 threads: 25 idle, 118 sleeping, 6 on CPU
Memory: 15G Act, 15M Wired, 28M Exec, 15G File, 4620K Free
Swap: 8192M Total, 8192M Free
PID LID US
On Sep 19, 8:53pm, Emmanuel Dreyfus wrote:
} Subject: Re: high load, no bottleneck
} Greg Oster wrote:
}
} IMO raidctl makes more sense here, as it is the place where one is
} looking for RAID stuff.
}
} While I am there: fsck takes an infinite time while RAIDframe is
} rebuilding parity. I nee
Brian Buhrow wrote:
> options RAIDOUTSTANDING=40 #try and enhance raid performance.
I gave it a try, and even with RAIDOUTSTANDING set to 800 on a
NetBSD-6.1 kernel, my stress test raises load over 10 with -o log,
whereas it remains below 1 without -o log
Therefore it must be something else.
Greg Oster wrote:
> Any additional load you have on the RAID set while rebuilding parity is
> just going to make things worse... What you really want to do is turn
> on the parity logging stuff, and reduce the amount of effort spent
> checking parity by orders of magnitude...
You mean raidctl -
On Sep 19, 11:35am, buh...@nfbcal.org (Brian Buhrow) wrote:
-- Subject: Re: high load, no bottleneck
| Hello. the worst case scenario is when a raid set is running in
| degraded mode. Greg sent me some notes on how to calculate the memory
| utilization in this instance. I'll go dig them o
On Thu, 19 Sep 2013 11:26:21 -0700 (PDT)
Paul Goyette wrote:
> On Thu, 19 Sep 2013, Brian Buhrow wrote:
>
> > The line I include in my config files is:
> >
> > options RAIDOUTSTANDING=40 #try and enhance raid performance.
>
> Is this likely to have any impact on a system with multiple raid-1
In article <523aab61.8000...@gmail.com>,
Jan Danielsson wrote:
>On 9/18/13 7:00 PM, Jan Danielsson wrote:
>>I'm trying to get kgdb working between two virtual box instances. (I
>> have verified that /dev/tty00 <-> /dev/tty00 works by running GENERIC
>> kernels and minicom on both virtual mach
On Sep 19, 6:41pm, m...@netbsd.org (Emmanuel Dreyfus) wrote:
-- Subject: Re: high load, no bottleneck
| Greg Oster wrote:
|
| > > sysctl to the rescue.
| >
| > The appropriate 'bit to twiddle' is likely raidPtr->openings.
| > Increasing the value can be done while holding raidPtr->mutex.
| > D
On Thu, 19 Sep 2013 20:53:30 +0200
m...@netbsd.org (Emmanuel Dreyfus) wrote:
> Greg Oster wrote:
>
> > It's probably easier to do by raidctl right now. I'm not opposed to
> > having RAIDframe grow a sysctl interface as well if folks think that
> > makes sense. The 'openings' value is currently
Greg Oster wrote:
> It's probably easier to do by raidctl right now. I'm not opposed to
> having RAIDframe grow a sysctl interface as well if folks think that
> makes sense. The 'openings' value is currently set on a per-RAID basis,
> so a sysctl would need to be able to handle individual RAID s
> options RAIDOUTSTANDING=40 #try and enhance raid performance.
Is there any downside to this other than memory usage?
How much does one unit cost?
On Thu, 19 Sep 2013, Brian Buhrow wrote:
The line I include in my config files is:
options RAIDOUTSTANDING=40 #try and enhance raid performance.
Is this likely to have any impact on a system with multiple raid-1
mirrors?
---
Hello. the worst case scenario is when a raid set is running in
degraded mode. Greg sent me some notes on how to calculate the memory
utilization in this instance. I'll go dig them out and send them along in
a bit. In theory, if all your raid sets are in degraded mode at once, and
i/o i
On Thu, 19 Sep 2013 20:14:33 +0200
Edgar Fuß wrote:
> > options RAIDOUTSTANDING=40 #try and enhance raid performance.
> Is there any downside to this other than memory usage?
> How much does one unit cost?
This is from the comment in src/sys/dev/raidframe/rf_netbsdkintf.c :
/*
* Allow RAIDOUT
Hello. thor's right. The raidframe driver defaults to a rediculously
low number of maximum outstanding transactions for today's environment.
This is not a criticism of how the number was chosen initially, but things
have changed. In my production kernels around here, I include the
followi
On Thu, 19 Sep 2013 18:41:45 +0200
m...@netbsd.org (Emmanuel Dreyfus) wrote:
> Greg Oster wrote:
>
> > > sysctl to the rescue.
> >
> > The appropriate 'bit to twiddle' is likely raidPtr->openings.
> > Increasing the value can be done while holding raidPtr->mutex.
> > Decreasing the value can al
Greg Oster wrote:
> > sysctl to the rescue.
>
> The appropriate 'bit to twiddle' is likely raidPtr->openings.
> Increasing the value can be done while holding raidPtr->mutex.
> Decreasing the value can also be done while holding raidPtr->mutex, but
> will need some care if attempting to decrease
On Thu, 19 Sep 2013 10:29:55 -0400
chris...@zoulas.com (Christos Zoulas) wrote:
> On Sep 19, 8:13am, t...@panix.com (Thor Lancelot Simon) wrote:
> -- Subject: Re: high load, no bottleneck
>
> | On Wed, Sep 18, 2013 at 06:03:11PM +0200, Emmanuel Dreyfus wrote:
> | > Emmanuel Dreyfus wrote:
> | >
On Sep 19, 8:13am, t...@panix.com (Thor Lancelot Simon) wrote:
-- Subject: Re: high load, no bottleneck
| On Wed, Sep 18, 2013 at 06:03:11PM +0200, Emmanuel Dreyfus wrote:
| > Emmanuel Dreyfus wrote:
| >
| > > Thank you for saving my day. But now what happens?
| > > I note the SATA disks are in
On Thu, Sep 19, 2013 at 08:13:42AM -0400, Thor Lancelot Simon wrote:
> There is at least one thing: RAIDframe doesn't allow enough simultaneously
> pending transactions, so everything *really* backs up behind the cache flush.
>
> Fixing that would require allowing RAIDframe to eat more RAM. Last
On 09/19/2013 05:35 AM, Mark Davies wrote:
> I have a system that is (sometimes) used as an ftp server to serve g4u
> disk images. Current machine is a Dell PowerEdge R320 with 16GB
> memory running 6.1_STABLE from yesterday.
>
> If I get 3 ftp clients all reading the same 45GB image from it I
On Wed, Sep 18, 2013 at 06:03:11PM +0200, Emmanuel Dreyfus wrote:
> Emmanuel Dreyfus wrote:
>
> > Thank you for saving my day. But now what happens?
> > I note the SATA disks are in IDE emulation mode, and not AHCI. This is
> > something I need to try changing:
>
> Switched to AHCI. Here is belo
On Wed, Sep 18, 2013 at 06:03:11PM +0200, Emmanuel Dreyfus wrote:
> Emmanuel Dreyfus wrote:
>
> > Thank you for saving my day. But now what happens?
> > I note the SATA disks are in IDE emulation mode, and not AHCI. This is
> > something I need to try changing:
>
> Switched to AHCI. Here is belo
On 09/19/2013 01:43 PM, Manuel Bouyer wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 19, 2013 at 08:30:05PM +1000, matthew green wrote:
>>
Memory: 15G Act, 113M Inact, 15M Wired, 29M Exec, 15G File,
112K Free Swap: 8192M Total, 8192M Free
>>>
>>> the file cache shouldn't be allowed to use that much memory.
>>
>
On Thu, Sep 19, 2013 at 08:30:05PM +1000, matthew green wrote:
>
> > > Memory: 15G Act, 113M Inact, 15M Wired, 29M Exec, 15G File, 112K Free
> > > Swap: 8192M Total, 8192M Free
> >
> > the file cache shouldn't be allowed to use that much memory.
>
> why do you say that? vm.filemax is not really
On Thursday 19 September 2013 20:36:49 Manuel Bouyer wrote:
> the file cache shouldn't be allowed to use that much memory.
> What are your vm.* settings (sysctl vm) ?
They are the default settings from GENERIC, I haven't explicitly set
anything.
vm.loadavg: 0.00 0.00 0.00
vm.maxslp = 20
vm.uspac
> > Memory: 15G Act, 113M Inact, 15M Wired, 29M Exec, 15G File, 112K Free
> > Swap: 8192M Total, 8192M Free
>
> the file cache shouldn't be allowed to use that much memory.
why do you say that? vm.filemax is not really a maximum, it
can use all free memory if there isn't memory pressure.
howev
> I re-enabled -o log and did the dd test again on NetBSD 6.0 with the
> patch you posted and vfs.wapbl.verbose_commit=2
I wouldn't expect anything interesting from this, but maybe hannken@ does.
> Running my stress test, which drives load to insane values:
How often do these log flushes occur?
D
On Thu, Sep 19, 2013 at 03:35:43PM +1200, Mark Davies wrote:
> I have a system that is (sometimes) used as an ftp server to serve g4u
> disk images. Current machine is a Dell PowerEdge R320 with 16GB
> memory running 6.1_STABLE from yesterday.
>
> If I get 3 ftp clients all reading the same 45G
On 9/18/13 7:00 PM, Jan Danielsson wrote:
>I'm trying to get kgdb working between two virtual box instances. (I
> have verified that /dev/tty00 <-> /dev/tty00 works by running GENERIC
> kernels and minicom on both virtual machines).
[---]
Problem #1 "solved" (worked-around). It looks like R
33 matches
Mail list logo
