Re: [PATCH 00/23] per device dirty throttling -v8

[david]

On Sat, 4 Aug 2007, Ray Lee wrote:

> (adding netdev cc:)
>
> On 8/4/07, david@xxxxxxx <david@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On Sat, 4 Aug 2007, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> >
> > > * Ingo Molnar <mingo@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >
> > > > There are positive reports in the never-ending "my system crawls like
> > > > an XT when copying large files" bugzilla entry:
> > > >
> > > >  http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=7372
> > >
> > > i forgot this entry:
> > >
> > > " We recently upgraded our office to gigabit Ethernet and got some big
> > >   AMD64 / 3ware boxes for file and vmware servers... only to find them
> > >   almost useless under any kind of real load. I've built some patched
> > >   2.6.21.6 kernels (using the bdi throttling patch you mentioned) to
> > >   see if our various Debian Etch boxes run better. So far my testing
> > >   shows a *great* improvement over the stock Debian 2.6.18 kernel on
> > >   our configurations. "
> > >
> > > and bdi has been in -mm in the past i think, so we also know (to a
> > > certain degree) that it does not hurt those workloads that are fine
> > > either.
> > >
> > > [ my personal interest in this is the following regression: every time i
> > >  start a large kernel build with DEBUG_INFO on a quad-core 4GB RAM box,
> > >  i get up to 30 seconds complete pauses in Vim (and most other tasks),
> > >  during plain editing of the source code. (which happens when Vim tries
> > >  to write() to its swap/undo-file.) ]
> >
> > I have an issue that sounds like it's related.
> >
> > I've got a syslog server that's got two Opteron 246 cpu's, 16G ram, 2x140G
> > 15k rpm drives (fusion MPT hardware mirroring), 16x500G 7200rpm SATA
> > drives on 3ware 9500 cards (software raid6) running 2.6.20.3 with hz set
> > at default and preempt turned off.
> >
> > I have syslog doing buffered writes to the SCSI drives and every 5 min a
> > cron job copies the data to the raid array.
> >
> > I've found that if I do anything significant on the large raid array that
> > the system looses a significant amount of the UDP syslog traffic, even
> > though there should be pleanty of ram and cpu (and the spindles involved
> > in the writes are not being touched), even a grep can cause up to 40%
> > losses in the syslog traffic. I've experimented with nice levels (nicing
> > down the grep and nicing up the syslogd) without a noticable effect on the
> > losses.
> >
> > I've been planning to try a new kernel with hz=1000 to see if that would
> > help, and after that experiment with the various preempt settings, but it
> > sounds like the per-device queues may actually be more relavent to the
> > problem.
> >
> > what would you suggest I test, and in what order and combination?
>
> At least on a surface level, your report has some similarities to
> http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/5/21/84 . In that message, John Miller
> mentions several things he tried without effect:
>
> < - I increased the max allowed receive buffer through
> < proc/sys/net/core/rmem_max and the application calls the right
> < syscall. "netstat -su" does not show any "packet receive errors".
> <
> < - After getting "kernel: swapper: page allocation failure.
> < order:0, mode:0x20", I increased /proc/sys/vm/min_free_kbytes
> <
> < - ixgb.txt in kernel network documentation suggests to increase
> < net.core.netdev_max_backlog to 300000. This did not help.
> <
> < - I also had to increase net.core.optmem_max, because the default
> < value was too small for 700 multicast groups.
>
> As they're all pretty simple to test, it may be worthwhile to give
> them a shot just to rule things out.

I will try them later today.

I forgot to mention that the filesystems are ext2 for the mirrored high 
speed disks and xfs for the 8TB array.

David Lang
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/