[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Oops, incomplete patch.
- Subject: Re: Oops, incomplete patch.
- Date: Thu, 05 Sep 2002 09:42:47 -0600
>To: Russ Rew <address@hidden>
>From: "Stonie R. Cooper" <address@hidden>
>Subject: Re: 20020730: The significance of pbuf_flush messages.
>Organization: Planetary Data
>Keywords: pbuf_flush-problem
Hi Stonie,
> No more pbuf_flush logs on ldm 5.2 . . . .
>
> There was a post by someone earlier about the incapatibility of ext3 and
> Linux with the ldm queue . . . but I had assumed it dealt specifically with
> ext3.
>
> As we normally deal with very large file systems, I use reiserfs. It's
> great, it's fast, it's easy to deal with.
>
> But it also doesn't play well with the ldm queue.
>
> . . . . after roughly a week of analysis . . .
>
> The kernel interrupts on that single file system (I dedicate a single 2GB
> file system to a 1.7GB ldm queue - no other files are on that file system)
> where ~100 times that of the LVM based reiserfs that was getting a lot more
> data. Even with a dual P-III, I was slowing everything way down, especially
> services tied to that filesystem.
>
> I haven't tried other jfs's . . . but considering the low complexity of the
> single file system, I was silly not to make it a ext2 in the first place.
>
> I have not gotten a single pbuf_flush message since shoving back to ext2 -
> and I just tuned out the regularly scheduled fsck's with a tune2fs -c -1 on
> that file system, so I can enjoy not having uninvited fsck'ers. Sorry,
> couldn't resist.
>
> I generally stick on a problem . . . and wear it down.
Thanks for the information on this problem. Here's my summary of what
you learned, let me know if I got it wrong:
- On a Linux platfrom, use a simple ext2 file system partition for
the LDM product queue, since reiserfs or ext3 will cause
performance problems, with symptom lots of pbuf_flush messages.
- For even better performance, turn off the periodic file system
checking with "tunefs -c -1".
I'm still not sure if the patch we provided to LDM 5.2 is also needed,
but we're including it in 5.2.1 anyway ...
--Russ