[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20100520161121.GB28963@atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz>
Date: Thu, 20 May 2010 18:11:21 +0200
From: Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>
To: linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org
Cc: Bruce Guenter <bruce@...roubled.org>
Subject: Re: ext4 df regression introduced by commit 9d0be50
Hi,
> I think I have found a regression introduced by commit 9d0be50 "ext4:
> Calculate metadata requirements more accurately".
Thanks for report!
> I am using ext4 on a NFSv4 server running unpatched kernel 2.6.33.3.
> The client is currently running unpatch 2.6.33.3, although I also saw
> the problem with the client running 2.6.32.10.
>
> The output from 'df' on the client varies wildly in the presence of
> certain writes. I have not pinned down an exact write pattern that
> causes it, but I do have an application that causes it fairly reliably.
> When the bug happens, I see swings like this:
>
> Sun May 9 23:04:58 2010 blocks=961173888 available=28183168
> Sun May 9 23:04:59 2010 blocks=961173888 available=12823424
> Sun May 9 23:05:00 2010 blocks=961173888 available=28183040
>
> (produced by a script that checks statvfs output every second; units are
> kB, df output is effectively identical)
Hmm, I'm not seeing anything obviously wrong with that patch but
apparently the number of blocks reserved for delayed allocation is
miscomputed by a lot...
Is your ext4 filesystem create from scratch or converted from ext3? Is
your application using lots of different files or rather a couple of small
ones? Anyways a reproducing program would be the best in this case...
Honza
--
Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>
SuSE CR Labs
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists