From: David Rees <drees76@gmail.com>
To: Hans-Peter Jansen <hpj@urpla.net>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: howto combat highly pathologic latencies on a server?
Date: Wed, 10 Mar 2010 15:44:54 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <72dbd3151003101544w18afc65ubbc85d5bfc435198@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <201003101817.42812.hpj@urpla.net>
On Wed, Mar 10, 2010 at 9:17 AM, Hans-Peter Jansen <hpj@urpla.net> wrote:
> While this system usually operates fine, it suffers from delays, that are
> displayed in latencytop as: "Writing page to disk: 8425,5 ms":
> ftp://urpla.net/lat-8.4sec.png, but we see them also in the 1.7-4.8 sec
> range: ftp://urpla.net/lat-1.7sec.png, ftp://urpla.net/lat-2.9sec.png,
> ftp://urpla.net/lat-4.6sec.png and ftp://urpla.net/lat-4.8sec.png.
>
> From other observations, this issue "feels" like it is induced by single
> syncronisation points in the block layer, eg. if I create heavy IO load on
> one RAID array, say resizing a VMware disk image, it can take up to a
> minute to log in by ssh, although the ssh login does not touch this area at
> all (different RAID arrays). Note, that the latencytop snapshots above are
> made during normal operation, not this kind of load..
>
> Might later kernels mitigate this problem? As this is a production system,
> that is used 6.5 days a week, I cannot do dangerous experiments, also
> switching to 64 bit is a problem due to the legacy stuff described above...
> OTOH, my users suffer from this, and anything helping in this respect is
> highly appreciated.
Seems like a 2.6.32 based kernel which has per-BDI writeback and "CFQ
low latency mode" changes might help a good deal. I know that on one
of my bigger machines (similar in specs to yours) which has a lot of
processes which do a decent amount of IO, latency and load average has
gone down after going to a 2.6.32 kernel from a 2.6.31 kernel (Fedora
11 system).
Like Chris suggested, I've also heard that using the noop IO scheduler
can work well on Areca controllers on some kernels and workloads.
It's worth a shot and you can even try changing it at run-time.
-Dave
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2010-03-10 23:45 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2010-03-10 17:17 Hans-Peter Jansen
2010-03-10 18:15 ` Christoph Hellwig
2010-03-11 0:15 ` Hans-Peter Jansen
2010-03-16 14:54 ` Hans-Peter Jansen
2010-03-10 23:29 ` Dave Chinner
2010-03-11 0:27 ` Hans-Peter Jansen
2010-03-11 16:58 ` Hans-Peter Jansen
2010-03-13 13:16 ` Dave Chinner
2010-03-10 23:44 ` David Rees [this message]
2010-03-11 1:20 ` Hans-Peter Jansen
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=72dbd3151003101544w18afc65ubbc85d5bfc435198@mail.gmail.com \
--to=drees76@gmail.com \
--cc=hpj@urpla.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
Powered by JetHome