Hi, On Wed, 2011-05-18 at 18:34 +0100, Alan Brown wrote: > Steven Whitehouse wrote: > > Hi, > > > > On Wed, 2011-05-18 at 16:14 +0100, Alan Brown wrote: > >> Bob, Steve, Dave, > >> > >> Is there any progress on tuning the size of the tables (RHEL5) to allow > >> larger values and see if they help things as far as caching goes? > >> > > There is a bz open, > > I thought so, but I can't find it. > Its #678102, which you are on the cc list of. It probably needs a RHEL5 bug as well. Bryn posted a patch to it to make the change, but I'm not sure of the current status. I'm copying in Dave Teigland so that he can comment on the current status. > > and you should ask for that to be linked to one of > > your support cases, if it hasn't already been. I thought we'd concluded > > though that this didn't actually affect your particular workload. > > Increasing them to 4096 hasn't but larger numbers might. > > >> It would be advantageous to tweak the dentry limits too - the kernel > >> limits this to 10% and attempts to increase are throttled back. > >> > > Yes, I've not forgotten this. I've been working on some similar issues > > recently and I'll explore this more fully once I'm done with the > > writeback side of things. > > Do you have a BZ for this one? > The writeback issues are under #676626 at the moment, although this is a slightly different issue to what that bug was originally opened for. There isn't a bug for the dentries issue as that needs to have a ticket opened first, and then a bz opened by support if appropriate. I've copied in Bryn so that he can pick this up and make sure that it is done, Steve. -- Linux-cluster mailing list Linux-cluster@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-cluster
