Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Thu, 20 Jun 2002 16:21:11 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Thu, 20 Jun 2002 16:21:10 -0400 Received: from parcelfarce.linux.theplanet.co.uk ([195.92.249.252]:28680 "EHLO www.linux.org.uk") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Thu, 20 Jun 2002 16:20:08 -0400 Message-ID: <3D1238A0.EA4906FB@zip.com.au> Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2002 13:18:40 -0700 From: Andrew Morton X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.79 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.4.19-pre8 i686) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Griffiths, Richard A" CC: "'Jens Axboe'" , mgross@unix-os.sc.intel.com, Linux Kernel Mailing List , lse-tech@lists.sourceforge.net Subject: Re: ext3 performance bottleneck as the number of spindles gets large References: <01BDB7EEF8D4D3119D95009027AE99951B0E63E4@fmsmsx33.fm.intel.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 881 Lines: 21 "Griffiths, Richard A" wrote: > > We ran without highmem enabled so the Kernel only saw 1GB of memory. > Yup. I take it back - high ext3 lock contention happens on 2.5 as well, which has block-highmem. With heavy write traffic onto six disks, two controllers, six filesystems, four CPUs the machine spends about 40% of the time spinning on locks in fs/ext3/inode.c You're un dual CPU, so the contention is less. Not very nice. But given that the longest spin time was some tens of milliseconds, with the average much lower, it shouldn't affect overall I/O throughput. Possibly something else is happening. Have you tested ext2? - 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/