Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756726AbYHURHt (ORCPT ); Thu, 21 Aug 2008 13:07:49 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752991AbYHURHj (ORCPT ); Thu, 21 Aug 2008 13:07:39 -0400 Received: from emh03.mail.saunalahti.fi ([62.142.5.109]:53052 "EHLO emh03.mail.saunalahti.fi" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751837AbYHURHi (ORCPT ); Thu, 21 Aug 2008 13:07:38 -0400 Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2008 20:10:08 +0300 (MET DST) From: Szabolcs Szakacsits X-X-Sender: szaka@dhcppc2 To: Dave Chinner cc: Andrew Morton , linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, xfs@oss.sgi.com Subject: Re: XFS vs Elevators (was Re: [PATCH RFC] nilfs2: continuous snapshotting file system) In-Reply-To: <20080821082532.GE5706@disturbed> Message-ID: References: <20080820004326.519405a2.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <200808201613.AA00212@capsicum.lab.ntt.co.jp> <20080820143916.1a7eddab.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <20080821021259.GA5706@disturbed> <20080821051508.GB5706@disturbed> <20080821060418.GC5706@disturbed> <20080821082532.GE5706@disturbed> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Antivirus: VAMS Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 2532 Lines: 49 On Thu, 21 Aug 2008, Dave Chinner wrote: > On Thu, Aug 21, 2008 at 04:04:18PM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote: > > > > One thing I just found out - my old *laptop* is 4-5x faster than the > > 10krpm scsi disk behind an old cciss raid controller. I'm wondering > > if the long delays in dispatch is caused by an interaction with CTQ > > but I can't change it on the cciss raid controllers. Are you using > > ctq/ncq on your machine? It's a laptop and has NCQ. It makes no difference if NCQ is enabled or disabled. The problem seems to be XFS only. > > If so, can you reduce the depth to something less than 4 and see what > > difference that makes? > > Just to point out - this is not a new problem - I can reproduce > it on 2.6.24 as well as 2.6.26. Likewise, my laptop shows XFS > being faster than ext3 on both 2.6.24 and 2.6.26. So the difference > is something related to the disk subsystem on the server.... XFS definitely stalls somewhere: stats show virtually no CPU usage and no time spent waiting for IO. No file system produces similar output. procs -----------memory---------- ---swap-- -----io---- -system-- ----cpu---- r b swpd free buff cache si so bi bo in cs us sy id wa 0 0 0 3146180 7848 600868 0 0 0 4128 790 549 0 2 98 0 0 0 0 3145200 7848 601524 0 0 0 2372 766 516 0 2 98 0 1 0 0 3144328 7848 602260 0 0 0 2924 792 542 1 2 98 0 0 1 0 3143824 7856 602664 0 0 0 4116 732 426 0 2 53 45 1 0 0 3143068 7856 603136 0 0 0 4676 756 534 0 3 95 1 0 0 0 3142652 7856 603540 0 0 0 6577 756 436 0 0 100 0 0 0 0 3141952 7856 604100 0 0 0 5840 764 498 1 3 96 0 0 0 0 3141424 7856 604544 0 0 0 4752 761 386 0 0 99 0 0 0 0 3140860 7856 604916 0 0 0 6477 785 495 0 1 98 0 0 0 0 3139980 7856 605468 0 0 0 2840 743 370 1 2 97 0 0 0 0 3138464 7856 606884 0 0 0 4902 795 421 0 4 96 0 0 0 0 3137636 7856 607696 0 0 0 4364 739 395 0 1 99 0 0 0 0 3136520 7856 608220 0 0 0 6160 774 566 0 2 97 0 Szaka -- NTFS-3G: http://ntfs-3g.org -- 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/