[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
20050401: Long write delays on bigbird
- Subject: 20050401: Long write delays on bigbird
- Date: Mon, 04 Apr 2005 16:49:44 -0600
>From: Gerry Creager n5jxs <address@hidden>
>Organization: AATLT, Texas A&M University
>Keywords: 200504012058.j31KwRv2003675 LDM queue large file Fedora Core 2
Hi Gerry,
Sorry for the silence!
>I'd remade the queue to 4G, per the last recommendation ("if 2G's good,
>4G's better!?") but pretty much as soon as I got the queue filled up,
>products started seeing a long time to get written to disk.
This could be caused by more products being processed (not overwritten
in a too small of a queue (based on what you are ingesting)); by
the pqact's having too many actions to process for each header
pattern matched in a pqact.conf file; or by slow access to the
products in the queue. If the cause is the latter, then I suggest
rebuilding the LDM _without_ large queue support:
<as 'ldm'>
ldmadmin stop
cd ldm-6.2.1/src <- or whatever version you are using
make distclean
./configure ----disable-max-size
make
make install
sudo make install_setuids
cd ~
ldmadmin delqueue
-- edit ~ldm/etc/ldmadmin-pl.conf and make sure that the queue size is
less than or equal to 2 GB
ldmadmin mkqueue -f
ldmadmin start
I am suspicious of Fedora Core 2, however, given that you were able
to process all of the data coming into a 4 GB queue under Fedora
Core 1. It may well be time to upgrade to FC3...
>One effect
>of this is my CONUS L3 mosaic was complaining the data was too old to
>use... an accurate assessment. Another is the Level II data are old
>when we can make the images.
>
>I've dropped the queue size to 2G (counterintuitive but things had been
>writing/working with the smaller pq before) to see what's happening.
OK.
>I'm at a loss, and going too many directions. If you've got
>suggestions, perhaps we can figure out what I've done that's causing the
>machine grief.
I am suspicious of:
- FC2
- the overhead of having a large queue support built into the LDM
modules under FC2
>I'm cc:' ing James Esslinger, who's doing (good!) sysadmin work for me.
>He may better catch something I've missed.
Try the above and let us know if it helps. I will say it again,
however, that we have found FC3 to be a _much_ better performer than
FC2, and we dumped our FC2 installations in favor of FC3 because of
that observation.
>Thanks, Gerry
Again, sorry for the protracted silence!
Cheers,
Tom
--
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
* Tom Yoksas UCAR Unidata Program *
* (303) 497-8642 (last resort) P.O. Box 3000 *
* address@hidden Boulder, CO 80307 *
* Unidata WWW Service http://www.unidata.ucar.edu/*
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+