Messages in this thread |  | | | Date | Tue, 24 Mar 2009 16:03:53 -0700 | | From | Jesse Barnes <> | | Subject | Re: Linux 2.6.29 |
| |
On Tue, 24 Mar 2009 09:20:32 -0400 Theodore Tso <tytso@mit.edu> wrote: > They don't solve the problem where there is a *huge* amount of writes > going on, though --- if something is dirtying pages at a rate far > greater than the local disk can write it out, say, either "dd > if=/dev/zero of=/mnt/make-lots-of-writes" or a massive distcc cluster > driving a huge amount of data towards a single system or a wget over a > local 100 megabit ethernet from a massive NFS server where everything > is in cache, then you can have a major delay with the fsync().
You make it sound like this is hard to do... I was running into this problem *every day* until I moved to XFS recently. I'm running a fairly beefy desktop (VMware running a crappy Windows install w/AV junk on it, builds, icecream and large mailboxes) and have a lot of RAM, but it became unusable for minutes at a time, which was just totally unacceptable, thus the switch. Things have been better since, but are still a little choppy.
I remember early in the 2.6.x days there was a lot of focus on making interactive performance good, and for a long time it was. But this I/O problem has been around for a *long* time now... What happened? Do not many people run into this daily? Do all the filesystem hackers run with special mount options to mitigate the problem?
-- Jesse Barnes, Intel Open Source Technology Center
|  |