Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754746Ab1EUAOn (ORCPT ); Fri, 20 May 2011 20:14:43 -0400 Received: from ipmail07.adl2.internode.on.net ([150.101.137.131]:21841 "EHLO ipmail07.adl2.internode.on.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752331Ab1EUAOi (ORCPT ); Fri, 20 May 2011 20:14:38 -0400 X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Aj8EAHAD1015LCoegWdsb2JhbACmHxUBARYmJsMsDoYLBJ8Y Date: Sat, 21 May 2011 10:14:31 +1000 From: Dave Chinner To: Andrey Rahmatullin Cc: Markus Trippelsdorf , Bruno =?iso-8859-1?Q?Pr=E9mont?= , xfs-masters@oss.sgi.com, xfs@oss.sgi.com, Christoph Hellwig , Alex Elder , Dave Chinner , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: 2.6.39-rc3, 2.6.39-rc4: XFS lockup - regression since 2.6.38 Message-ID: <20110521001431.GS32466@dastard> References: <20110423224403.5fd1136a@neptune.home> <20110427050850.GG12436@dastard> <20110427182622.05a068a2@neptune.home> <20110428194528.GA1627@x4.trippels.de> <20110429011929.GA13542@dastard> <20110520112018.GB3867@belkar.wrar.name> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20110520112018.GB3867@belkar.wrar.name> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1519 Lines: 32 On Fri, May 20, 2011 at 05:20:18PM +0600, Andrey Rahmatullin wrote: > On Fri, Apr 29, 2011 at 11:19:29AM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote: > > > x4 ~ # xfs_info / > > > meta-data=/dev/root isize=256 agcount=4, agsize=1949824 blks > > > = sectsz=512 attr=2 > > > data = bsize=4096 blocks=7799296, imaxpct=25 > > > = sunit=128 swidth=128 blks > > > naming =version 2 bsize=4096 ascii-ci=0 > > > log =internal bsize=4096 blocks=3808, version=2 > > > = sectsz=512 sunit=8 blks, lazy-count=1 > > > realtime =none extsz=4096 blocks=0, rtextents=0 > > OK, so the common elements here appears to be root filesystems > > with small log sizes, which means they are tail pushing all the > > time metadata operations are in progress. > Does that mean that such filesystems are not optimal in terms of > performance and/or reliability and should have larger log sizes? Performance. Larger logs generally result in faster metadata performance, but it's really dependent on your workload and storage as to whether it makes any difference. Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner david@fromorbit.com -- 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/