Doh!! :) Is it normal? $ gfs_tool df /mnt /mnt: SB lock proto = "lock_dlm" SB lock table = "hotsite:gfs-00" SB ondisk format = 1309 SB multihost format = 1401 Block size = 4096 Journals = 2 Resource Groups = 424 Mounted lock proto = "lock_dlm" Mounted lock table = "hotsite:gfs-00" Mounted host data = "jid=1:id=196609:first=0" Journal number = 1 Lock module flags = 0 Local flocks = FALSE Local caching = FALSE Oopses OK = FALSE Type Total Used Free use% ------------------------------------------------------------------------ inodes 854 854 0 100% metadata 48761 2259 46502 5% data 27652913 1061834 26591079 4% I thinking my load average very high under apacheab... On Mon, 2008-06-16 at 11:53 -0500, Terry wrote: > Doh! Check this out: > > [root@omadvnfs01b ~]# gfs_tool df /data01d > /data01d: > SB lock proto = "lock_dlm" > SB lock table = "omadvnfs01:gfs_data01d" > SB ondisk format = 1309 > SB multihost format = 1401 > Block size = 4096 > Journals = 2 > Resource Groups = 16384 > Mounted lock proto = "lock_dlm" > Mounted lock table = "omadvnfs01:gfs_data01d" > Mounted host data = "jid=1:id=786434:first=0" > Journal number = 1 > Lock module flags = 0 > Local flocks = FALSE > Local caching = FALSE > Oopses OK = FALSE > > Type Total Used Free use% > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > inodes 18417216 18417216 0 100% > metadata 21078536 20002007 1076529 95% > data 1034059688 744936460 289123228 72% > > > The number of inodes is interesting...... > > > On Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 11:45 AM, Terry <td3201@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Hello, > > > > I have 4 GFS volumes, each 4 TB. I am seeing pretty high load > > averages on the host that is serving these volumes out via NFS. I > > notice that gfs_scand, dlm_recv, and dlm_scand are running with high > > CPU%. I truly believe the box is I/O bound due to high awaits but > > trying to dig into root cause. 99% of the activity on these volumes > > is write. The number of files is around 15 million per TB. Given > > the high number of writes, increasing scand_secs will not help. Any > > other optimizations I can do? > > > > Thanks! > > > > -- > Linux-cluster mailing list > Linux-cluster@xxxxxxxxxx > https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-cluster > -- Tiago Cruz http://everlinux.com Linux User #282636 -- Linux-cluster mailing list Linux-cluster@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-cluster
