Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1757649AbZDCDOT (ORCPT ); Thu, 2 Apr 2009 23:14:19 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1754889AbZDCDOE (ORCPT ); Thu, 2 Apr 2009 23:14:04 -0400 Received: from wf-out-1314.google.com ([209.85.200.169]:26194 "EHLO wf-out-1314.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753631AbZDCDOC convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Thu, 2 Apr 2009 23:14:02 -0400 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=e4hK6eMd0IZRu7+he6OTuBdJqyH1M7KhgND2TULVviXVJY4ELKH0dVYZgqZLCAZZT1 cXoJk88KaDzSy807cUtW4ew5GHIN1Ube7W9lwLe0H8UOoj2J9n/FFo0qhqNZw0nM/v+q kNGS8Sf3xV/Tl8eu2TfOGptJgrup6I9bW74m4= MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <9b1675090904022013t6c892b9bo91eab0fd7091bfbe@mail.gmail.com> References: <49CCCB0A.6070701@nokia.com> <9b1675090904021724t2fb0a671uc10d8e7bcba0bc5c@mail.gmail.com> <9b1675090904021728y35776377u327f2266d06e2f29@mail.gmail.com> <72dbd3150904021855v440f46a7oc21a7ed28fbfcb13@mail.gmail.com> <9b1675090904021905o7e0cec64lfe4a5372777908b6@mail.gmail.com> <72dbd3150904021919g5405ee40p100eacb085024941@mail.gmail.com> <9b1675090904021928k5a9948f9l8d93b6cbd5531720@mail.gmail.com> <72dbd3150904021958q7795dc62keb54d1fbfaa6abc7@mail.gmail.com> <9b1675090904022013t6c892b9bo91eab0fd7091bfbe@mail.gmail.com> Date: Thu, 2 Apr 2009 21:14:00 -0600 Message-ID: <9b1675090904022014t27e7f75ev1ca93cba94737c36@mail.gmail.com> Subject: Re: EXT4-ish "fixes" in UBIFS From: "Trenton D. Adams" To: David Rees Cc: Christian Kujau , Artem Bityutskiy , Linux Kernel Mailing List Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 2056 Lines: 41 I'm really sorry, I just realized I hijacked this thread. I'll stop now. On Thu, Apr 2, 2009 at 9:13 PM, Trenton D. Adams wrote: > On Thu, Apr 2, 2009 at 8:58 PM, David Rees wrote: >> On Thu, Apr 2, 2009 at 7:28 PM, Trenton D. Adams >>> That's the odd thing, I was setting them to 2 and 1. ?I was just >>> looking at the 2.6.29 code, and it should have made a difference. ?I >>> don't know what version of the kernel I was using at the time. ?And, >>> I'm not sure if I had the 1M fsync tests in place at the time either, >>> to be sure about what I was testing. ?It could be that I wasn't being >>> very scientific about it at the time. ?Thanks though, that setting >>> makes a huge difference. >> >> Well, it depends on how much memory you have. ?Keep in mind that those >> are percentages - so if you have 2GB RAM, that's the same as setting >> it to 40MB and 20MB respectively - both are a lot larger than the 1M >> you were setting the dirty*bytes vm knobs to. >> >> I've got a problematic server with 8GB RAM. ?Even if set both to 1, >> that's 80MB and the crappy disks I have in it will often only write >> 10-20MB/s or less due to the seekiness of the workload. ?That means >> delays of 5-10 seconds worst case which isn't fun. >> >> -Dave >> > > Yeah, I just finished doing the calculation. :P ?40M is what I'm > seeing. ?Yeah, that sounds like the same as my problem. ?Even setting > it to 10M dirty_bytes has a very serious latency problem. ?I'm glad > that option was added, because 1M works much better. ?I'll have to > change my shell script to dynamically tune on that. ?Because under > normal load, I want the 40M+ of queueing. ?It's just when things get > really heavy, and stuff starts getting flushed, that this problem > starts happening. > -- 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/