[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20061002174039.GA17764@redhat.com>
Date: Mon, 2 Oct 2006 13:40:39 -0400
From: Dave Jones <davej@...hat.com>
To: Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
Cc: Trond Myklebust <trond.myklebust@....uio.no>,
Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@...el.com>,
"Ananiev, Leonid I" <leonid.i.ananiev@...el.com>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <Linux-Kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Postal 56% waits for flock_lock_file_wait
On Mon, Oct 02, 2006 at 06:51:56PM +0100, Alan Cox wrote:
> Ar Llu, 2006-10-02 am 13:11 -0400, ysgrifennodd Trond Myklebust:
> > Ext3 does not use flock() in order to lock its journal. The performance
> > issues that he is seeing may well be due to the journalling, but that
> > has nothing to do with flock_lock_file_wait.
>
> The ext3 journal also generally speaking improves many-writer
> performance as do the reservations so the claim seems odd on that basis
> too. Rerun the test on a gigabyte iRam or similar and you'll see where
> the non-media bottlenecks actually are
"or similar" maybe. The iRam is pretty much junk in my experience[*].
It rarely survives a mkfs, let alone sustained high throughput I/O.
(And yes, I did try multiple DIMMs, including ones which survive
memtest86 just fine).
Another "Boots Windows, ship it" QA disaster afaics.
Dave
[*] And from googling/talking with other owners, my experiences aren't unique.
--
http://www.codemonkey.org.uk
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists