On Tue, 2004-04-06 at 15:17, camis wrote: > >>Has anyone done any throughput/benchmarks for the various > >>new patches/code? > > > > The block allocator stuff is fresh from the oven and still warm inside. > > I'll be posting benchmarks for it as the week goes on. > > Something interesitng: > I have 8 dell 2650's (dual xeon 2.8ghz+hyperthreading) and i've setup > the one machine above with the patches.. All 8 machines are incoming > MX/smtp machines which handle quite large loads (5gigs of mail per day). > > machine 1: > (mounted:noatime,nodiratime,data=ordered,alloc=skip_busy:dirid_groups,packing_groups) > > 21:16:17 up 12:17, 1 user, load average: 0.45, 1.04, 1.07 > 375 processes: 374 sleeping, 1 running, 0 zombie, 0 stopped > CPU states: cpu user nice system irq softirq iowait idle > total 7.2% 0.0% 32.4% 0.0% 0.8% 5.2% 353.2% > cpu00 1.8% 0.0% 10.6% 0.1% 0.9% 1.3% 85.0% > cpu01 1.5% 0.0% 7.4% 0.0% 0.1% 0.9% 89.9% > cpu02 1.7% 0.0% 7.0% 0.0% 0.1% 1.7% 89.3% > cpu03 1.8% 0.0% 7.4% 0.0% 0.1% 1.5% 88.9% > > Iowait total stays hovering at around the 6->8% mark.. > > machine 2->8: (mounted: noatime,nodiratime) > > 21:14:31 up 1 day, 8:41, 1 user, load average: 0.43, 0.72, 0.66 > 392 processes: 391 sleeping, 1 running, 0 zombie, 0 stopped > CPU states: cpu user nice system irq softirq iowait idle > total 8.0% 0.0% 35.2% 0.0% 1.6% 0.8% 352.8% > cpu00 2.0% 0.0% 11.1% 0.1% 1.5% 0.3% 84.6% > cpu01 2.0% 0.0% 7.7% 0.0% 0.3% 0.1% 89.5% > cpu02 2.2% 0.0% 7.7% 0.0% 0.0% 0.3% 89.5% > cpu03 1.8% 0.0% 8.7% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 89.3% > > The majority of the rest of the machines iowait hover around the 1% > mark.. CPU time tends to be about the same, just the iowait is much > much higher..
Very interesting. data=ordered makes fsync more expensive, since it ends up syncing more then just the buffers for that one file. Could you please try removing data=ordered from machine1? -chris
