mirror of https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: mgross <mgross@unix-os.sc.intel.com>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@zip.com.au>,
	"Griffiths, Richard A" <richard.a.griffiths@intel.com>
Cc: "'Jens Axboe'" <axboe@suse.de>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	lse-tech@lists.sourceforge.net
Subject: Re: ext3 performance bottleneck as the number of spindles gets large
Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2002 14:08:38 -0400	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <200206202101.g5KL1BP10776@unix-os.sc.intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <3D1238A0.EA4906FB@zip.com.au>

On Thursday 20 June 2002 04:18 pm, Andrew Morton wrote:
> 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.

How could losing 40% of your CPU's to spin locks NOT spank your throughtput?  
Can you copy your lockmeter data from its kernel_flag section?  Id like to 
see it.

>
> Possibly something else is happening.  Have you tested ext2?

No.  We're attempting to see if we can scale to large numbers of spindles 
with EXT3 at the moment.  Perhaps we can effect positive changes to ext3 
before giving up on it and moving to another Journaled FS.


--mgross

  reply	other threads:[~2002-06-20 21:01 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 16+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2002-06-20 15:26 ext3 performance bottleneck as the number of spindles gets la rge Griffiths, Richard A
2002-06-20 20:18 ` ext3 performance bottleneck as the number of spindles gets large Andrew Morton
2002-06-20 18:08   ` mgross [this message]
2002-06-20 21:25     ` Andrew Morton
  -- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2002-06-20 21:50 ext3 performance bottleneck as the number of spindles gets la rge Griffiths, Richard A
2002-06-21  7:58 ` ext3 performance bottleneck as the number of spindles gets large Andrew Morton
2002-06-21 18:46   ` mgross
2002-06-21 19:26     ` Chris Mason
2002-06-21 19:56     ` Andrew Morton
2002-06-23  4:02 ` Christopher E. Brown
2002-06-23  4:33   ` Andreas Dilger
2002-06-23  6:00     ` Christopher E. Brown
2002-06-19 21:29 mgross
2002-06-20  0:54 ` Andrew Morton
2002-06-20  9:54   ` Stephen C. Tweedie
2002-06-20  1:55 ` Andrew Morton
2002-06-20  6:05   ` Jens Axboe

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=200206202101.g5KL1BP10776@unix-os.sc.intel.com \
    --to=mgross@unix-os.sc.intel.com \
    --cc=akpm@zip.com.au \
    --cc=axboe@suse.de \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=lse-tech@lists.sourceforge.net \
    --cc=richard.a.griffiths@intel.com \
    /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®