ACK!
At one point some one stated that they were having problems with XFS
crashing under high NFS loads... Did it look something like this?
-Adam
Starting XFS recovery on filesystem: md0 (logdev: internal)
Filesystem "md0": XFS internal error xlog_valid_rec_header(1) at line
3478 of file fs/xfs/xfs_log_recover.c. Caller 0xffffffff802114fc
Call Trace: <ffffffff80211437>{xlog_valid_rec_header+231}
<ffffffff802114fc>{xlog_do_recovery_pass+172}
<ffffffff8020f0c8>{xlog_find_tail+2344}
<ffffffff802217e1>{kmem_alloc+97}
<ffffffff80211bb0>{xlog_recover+192}
<ffffffff8020c564>{xfs_log_mount+1380}
<ffffffff80213968>{xfs_mountfs+2712}
<ffffffff8016aa3a>{set_blocksize+138}
<ffffffff80224d1d>{xfs_setsize_buftarg_flags+61}
<ffffffff802192b4>{xfs_mount+2724}
<ffffffff8022ae00>{linvfs_fill_super+0}
<ffffffff8022aeb8>{linvfs_fill_super+184}
<ffffffff8024a62e>{strlcpy+78}
<ffffffff80169db2>{sget+722} <ffffffff8016a460>{set_bdev_super+0}
<ffffffff8022ae00>{linvfs_fill_super+0}
<ffffffff8022ae00>{linvfs_fill_super+0}
<ffffffff8016a5bc>{get_sb_bdev+268}
<ffffffff8016a84b>{do_kern_mount+107}
<ffffffff8017eed3>{do_mount+1603}
<ffffffff8011a2f9>{do_page_fault+1033}
<ffffffff80145f66>{find_get_pages+22}
<ffffffff8014d57a>{invalidate_mapping_pages+202}
<ffffffff80149f99>{__alloc_pages+89}
<ffffffff8014a234>{__get_free_pages+52}
<ffffffff8017f257>{sys_mount+151} <ffffffff8010a996>{system_call+126}
XFS: log mount/recovery failed: error 990
XFS: log mount failed
Adam Talbot wrote:
> Trying to test for tuning with different chunk's. Just finished 16K
> chunk and am about 20% done with the 32K test. Here are the numbers on
> 16K chunk, will send 32, 96,128,192 and 256 as I get them. But keep in
> mind each one of these tests take about 4~6 hours, so it is a slow
> process... I have settled for XFS as the file system type, it seems to
> be able to beat any thing else out there.
> -Adam
>
> XFS
> Config=NAS+NFS
> RAID6 16K chunk
> nas tmp # time tar cf - . | (cd /data ; tar xf - )
> real 252m40.143s
> user 1m4.720s
> sys 25m6.270s
> /dev/md/0 1.1T 371G 748G 34% /data
> 4.207 hours @ 90,167M/hour or 1502M/min or 25.05M/sec
>
>
>
>
> David Greaves wrote:
>
>> Adam Talbot wrote:
>>
>>
>>> OK, this topic I relay need to get in on.
>>> I have spent the last few week bench marking my new 1.2TB, 6 disk, RAID6
>>> array.
>>>
>>>
>> Very interesting. Thanks.
>>
>> Did you get around to any 'tuning'.
>> Things like raid chunk size, external logs for xfs, blockdev readahead
>> on the underlying devices and the raid device?
>>
>> David
>> -
>> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-raid" in
>> the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
>>
>>
>>
>
> -
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-raid" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
>
>
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-raid" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
