From: Trond Myklebust <trond.myklebust@fys.uio.no>
To: Jakob Oestergaard <jakob@unthought.net>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: NFS client (10x) performance regression 2.6.14.7 -> 2.6.15
Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2006 07:22:50 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1143807770.8096.4.camel@lade.trondhjem.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20060331094850.GF9811@unthought.net>
On Fri, 2006-03-31 at 11:48 +0200, Jakob Oestergaard wrote:
> Hi guys,
>
> I just found out... Installed 2.6.16.1 (32-bit) on a spanking new dual
> opteron 275 (dual-core) machine, and saw that my link jobs were taking
> ages.
>
> I narrowed it down a bit - these are the kernels I have tested:
> 2.6.13.5: Good
> 2.6.14.7: Good
> 2.6.15: Poor
> 2.6.15.7: Poor
> 2.6.16.1: Poor
>
> Sequential NFS I/O is good on all kernels. Only "ld" shows the problem.
>
> On 2.6.14.7, I can run a large link job creating a 60 MB executable in
> 15.6 seconds wall-clock time.
>
> On 2.6.15, the same link job takes 2 minutes 28 seconds.
>
> This is almost 10 *times* longer.
>
> Testing with tiobench, I can see no notable difference between the
> kernels (!) It seems that this is very specific to ld. I am using GNU
> ld version 2.15.
>
> The NFS client mounts the working directory using NFS v3 over UDP with
> default (32k) rsize/wsize.
>
> Since this machine is not in production yet, I can experiment with
> kernel patches on it - I would like to try and narrow this down even
> further - any suggestions as to which patches to exclude/include will be
> greatly appreciated.
Some nfsstat output comparing the good and bad cases would help.
Cheers,
Trond
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2006-03-31 12:23 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 24+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2006-03-31 9:48 Jakob Oestergaard
2006-03-31 11:22 ` NFS client regression, simple test program Jakob Oestergaard
2006-03-31 12:22 ` Trond Myklebust [this message]
2006-03-31 12:45 ` NFS client (10x) performance regression 2.6.14.7 -> 2.6.15 Jakob Oestergaard
2006-03-31 13:06 ` Trond Myklebust
2006-03-31 13:21 ` Jakob Oestergaard
2006-03-31 13:44 ` Trond Myklebust
2006-03-31 14:08 ` Jakob Oestergaard
2006-03-31 14:21 ` Trond Myklebust
2006-03-31 14:35 ` Jakob Oestergaard
2006-03-31 14:49 ` Bill Rugolsky Jr.
2006-03-31 14:57 ` Jakob Oestergaard
2006-03-31 15:04 ` Bill Rugolsky Jr.
2006-03-31 15:24 ` Jakob Oestergaard
2006-03-31 16:35 ` Bill Rugolsky Jr.
2006-03-31 18:52 ` Jakob Oestergaard
2006-03-31 15:55 ` Trond Myklebust
2006-03-31 16:04 ` Jakob Oestergaard
2006-04-03 15:26 ` Jakob Oestergaard
2006-04-03 15:41 ` Trond Myklebust
2006-04-03 15:45 ` Jakob Oestergaard
2006-04-04 9:22 ` Jakob Oestergaard
2006-04-24 22:03 ` Trond Myklebust
2006-04-25 8:08 ` Jakob Oestergaard
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=1143807770.8096.4.camel@lade.trondhjem.org \
--to=trond.myklebust@fys.uio.no \
--cc=jakob@unthought.net \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®