On Thu, Jun 27, 2013 at 08:58:06AM -0700, aurfalien wrote: > > On Jun 26, 2013, at 6:48 PM, Dave Chinner wrote: > > > On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 04:56:31PM -0700, aurfalien wrote: > >> Hi all, > >> > >> Wondering if my log being just under 2GB is a bad idea. > >> > >> Noticing flush-253:2/kcopyd which is my XFS file system getting > >> really high load avg and wait times via top). > > > > What has the log size got to do with something that is happening at > > the block layer? What's your storage config? > > > >> Doing a simple rsync over NFS and after a bit, the system gets to a load of 24.... yikes... > > > > Let me guess - 24 nfsds blocked waiting for kcopyd to do it's stuff? > > > > Load average going up when the NFS server is busy generally means > > your IO subsystem is heavily loaded - it's not uncommon to see large > > NFS servers that are extremely busy sustain load averages over a > > 100 (or even 1000) for hours/days on end.... > > > >> Upon killing the rsync, I am seeing loads going down to sub 1 > >> after about 10 min. I have repeated this to verify 10 min. > > > > Sure. Processes blocked on IO contribute to the load average. Kill > > the IO load, and the load average will return to nothing in 10-15 > > minutes. > > > Not so fast my fine feathered friend. > > Same work load, same hardware. > > Only diff is; > > External log, its 2GB > And its Centos 6.4 which was previously 5.9. Oh, you're comparing behaviour between kernels 5 years in age difference. Well, things change, and a change of load average for the same workload between very different kernels is no unexpected. Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
