On 03/07/2015 03:07 PM, Brian Foster wrote: > Thanks for the data. Some notes from the backtraces in the first > instance: Thank you for the quick reply. I'm not sure if the first instance is the most representative: It was very short - only one message was logged and then everything was fine again. The later one starting at 00:48 in the logs however was long enough to make our nagios complain. > Considering this is a large memory box (64g), I wonder if some vm tuning > might help mitigate this behavior..? For example, increase > /proc/sys/vm/min_free_kbytes in hopes of allowing more memory for these > allocations when under pressure, or tune down the > dirty_ratio/dirty_background_ratio thresholds to more aggressively get > data onto disk..? That idea had occoured to me too, but at least vm.min_free_kbytes=4000000 vm.vfs_cache_pressure=200 did not prevent the problem from occouring. Regards, -- Michael Meier, Zentrale Systeme Friedrich-Alexander-Universitaet Erlangen-Nuernberg Regionales Rechenzentrum Erlangen Martensstrasse 1, 91058 Erlangen, Germany Tel.: +49 9131 85-28973, Fax: +49 9131 302941 michael.meier@xxxxxx www.rrze.fau.de _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
