Messages in this thread |  | | | Date | Thu, 9 Mar 2006 23:10:39 -0800 | | From | Joel Becker <> | | Subject | Re: [Ocfs2-devel] Ocfs2 performance |
| |
Please don't drop the ocfs2-devel Cc: I'm bouncing this there.
On Fri, Mar 10, 2006 at 02:14:08AM +0100, Bernd Eckenfels wrote: > Mark Fasheh <mark.fasheh@oracle.com> wrote: > > Your hash sizes are still ridiculously large. > > How long are those entries in the buckets kept? I mean if I untar a tree the > files are only locked while extracted, afterwards they are owner-less... (I > must admint I dont understand ocfs2 very deeply, but maybe explaining why so > many active locks need to be cached might help to find an optimized way. > > > By the way, an interesting thing happened when I recently switched disk > > arrays - the fluctuations in untar times disappeared. The new array is much > > nicer, while the old one was basically Just A Bunch Of Disks. Also, sync > > times dropped dramatically. > > Writeback Cache? > > Gruss > Bernd > - > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in > the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html > Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
--
"Depend on the rabbit's foot if you will, but remember, it didn't help the rabbit." - R. E. Shay
Joel Becker Principal Software Developer Oracle E-mail: joel.becker@oracle.com Phone: (650) 506-8127 - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
|  |