[lkml]   [2009]   [Mar]   [24]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: Linux 2.6.29
    On Tue, 24 Mar 2009 09:20:32 -0400
    Theodore Tso <> 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

     \ /
      Last update: 2009-03-25 00:07    [W:0.020 / U:6.368 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site