So I have this dual 16-core Opteron Dell R715 with 128G of RAM attached
to a SuperMicro disk enclosure with 45 2TB Toshiba SAS drives (via two
LSI 9200 controllers and MPxIO) running OpenIndiana 151a4 and I'm
occasionally seeing a storm of xcalls on one of the 32 VCPUs (>10
xcalls a second). Th
On Jun 6, 2012, at 12:48 AM, Sašo Kiselkov wrote:
> So I have this dual 16-core Opteron Dell R715 with 128G of RAM attached
> to a SuperMicro disk enclosure with 45 2TB Toshiba SAS drives (via two
> LSI 9200 controllers and MPxIO) running OpenIndiana 151a4 and I'm
> occasionally seeing a storm of
On 06/06/2012 04:55 PM, Richard Elling wrote:
> On Jun 6, 2012, at 12:48 AM, Sašo Kiselkov wrote:
>
>> So I have this dual 16-core Opteron Dell R715 with 128G of RAM attached
>> to a SuperMicro disk enclosure with 45 2TB Toshiba SAS drives (via two
>> LSI 9200 controllers and MPxIO) running OpenIn
On 06/06/2012 05:01 PM, Sašo Kiselkov wrote:
> I'll try and load the machine with dd(1) to the max to see if access
> patterns of my software have something to do with it.
Tried and tested, any and all write I/O to the pool causes this xcall
storm issue, writing more data to it only exacerbates it
On Jun 6, 2012, at 8:01 AM, Sašo Kiselkov wrote:
> On 06/06/2012 04:55 PM, Richard Elling wrote:
>> On Jun 6, 2012, at 12:48 AM, Sašo Kiselkov wrote:
>>
>>> So I have this dual 16-core Opteron Dell R715 with 128G of RAM attached
>>> to a SuperMicro disk enclosure with 45 2TB Toshiba SAS drives (v
On Jun 6, 2012, at 8:22 AM, Sašo Kiselkov wrote:
> On 06/06/2012 05:01 PM, Sašo Kiselkov wrote:
>> I'll try and load the machine with dd(1) to the max to see if access
>> patterns of my software have something to do with it.
>
> Tried and tested, any and all write I/O to the pool causes this xca
I can't help but be curious about something, which perhaps you verified but
did not post.
What the data here shows is;
- CPU 31 is buried in the kernel (100% sys).
- CPU 31 is handling a moderate-to-high rate of xcalls.
What the data does not prove empirically is that the 100% sys time of
CPU 31
On 06/06/2012 09:43 PM, Jim Mauro wrote:
>
> I can't help but be curious about something, which perhaps you verified but
> did not post.
>
> What the data here shows is;
> - CPU 31 is buried in the kernel (100% sys).
> - CPU 31 is handling a moderate-to-high rate of xcalls.
>
> What the data doe
