> > actually a global dirty_ratio causes interference between devices which
> > should otherwise not block each other...
> >
> > if you set up a "dd if=/dev/zero of=/dev/sdb bs=1M" it shouldn't affect
> > write performance on sda -- but it does... because the dd basically
> > dirties all of th
On Thu, 11 Jan 2007 14:35:06 -0800 (PST)
dean gaudet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> actually a global dirty_ratio causes interference between devices which
> should otherwise not block each other...
>
> if you set up a "dd if=/dev/zero of=/dev/sdb bs=1M" it shouldn't affect
> write performance on
On Thu, 11 Jan 2007, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Thu, 11 Jan 2007 03:04:00 -0800 (PST)
> dean gaudet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 9 Jan 2007, Neil Brown wrote:
> >
> > > Imagine a machine with lots of memory - say 100Gig.
> >
> > i've had these problems on machines as "small" as 8GiB.
On Thu, 11 Jan 2007 03:04:00 -0800 (PST)
dean gaudet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, 9 Jan 2007, Neil Brown wrote:
>
> > Imagine a machine with lots of memory - say 100Gig.
>
> i've had these problems on machines as "small" as 8GiB. the real problem
> is that the kernel will let millions
On Tue, 9 Jan 2007, Neil Brown wrote:
> Imagine a machine with lots of memory - say 100Gig.
i've had these problems on machines as "small" as 8GiB. the real problem
is that the kernel will let millions of potential (write) IO ops stack up
for a device which can handle only mere 100s of IOs per
On Wed, 10 Jan 2007 14:29:35 +1100
Neil Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > It would be better if we can avoid creating the second global variable. Is
> > it not possible to remove dirty_ratio? Make everything work off
> > vm_dirty_kb and do arithmetricks at the /proc/sys/vm/dirty_ratio in
On Tuesday January 9, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> Actually, ext3 doesn't work that way. The atime update will go into the
> "running transaction", which is an instance of journal_t which is separate
> from the committing transaction.
Hmm... fair enough. start_this_handle (which is called event
On Tuesday January 9, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> Could be IO scheduler borkage, could be ext3 borkage. A well-timed sysrq-T
> will tell us, and is worth doing (please).
The problem has been reported against reiserfs and ext3, and against
SLES9 and SLES10. The big machine I can test with is cu
On Tue, 9 Jan 2007 19:57:50 +1100
Neil Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Imagine a machine with lots of memory - say 100Gig.
>
> Suppose there is one (largish) filesystem that is ext3 (or maybe
> reiser) with the default data=ordered.
>
> Suppose this filesystem is being written to steadily
Imagine a machine with lots of memory - say 100Gig.
Suppose there is one (largish) filesystem that is ext3 (or maybe
reiser) with the default data=ordered.
Suppose this filesystem is being written to steadily so that the
maximum amount of memory is always dirty. With the default
vm.dirty_ratio
10 matches
Mail list logo
