Message-Id: <200110041515.f94FFW607488@jen.americas.sgi.com>
To: kris buggenhout <buggenkr@god.bel.alcatel.be>
cc: Steve Lord <lord@sgi.com>, "linux-xfs@oss.sgi.com" <linux-xfs@oss.sgi.com>
Subject: Re: shutting down f/s 
In-Reply-To: Message from kris buggenhout <buggenkr@god.bel.alcatel.be> 
   of "Thu, 04 Oct 2001 17:08:52 +0200." <3BBC7B84.FEFEDBE8@god.bel.alcatel.be> 
Date: Thu, 04 Oct 2001 10:15:32 -0500
From: Steve Lord <lord@sgi.com>
Sender: owner-linux-xfs@oss.sgi.com
Precedence: bulk

> Steve Lord wrote:
> > 
> > > Might this be related to shutdowns taking a long time to actually
> > > unmount fs...
> > > I noticed since I upped the kernel to an 2.4.10 release ( dont know the
> > > exact checkout)
> > > shutdowns hang on umount for a significant larger period... as in taking
> > > 2-3 minutes istd of 20-30 secs.
> > 
> > Hmm, thats a new one to me too, my shutdowns on all xfs boxes do not appear
> > to have become any longer - however, the systems are not busy before the
> > unmount usually. The new VM showed up later in the 2.4.10-pre series,
> > possibly this was the cause.
> > 
> > Can you characterize how much activity there is on the system before
> > shutdown - would there typically be a lot of dirty data in filesystems?
> > Also, you mention write activity - is this during shutdown?
> > 
> After a whole day of writing files / ftp logs / ftp data /archiving data
> on cd / removing data, .
> approx 1-3Gig/day.
> 
> with some processes still holding a lock on that dir ( they should get
> killed before umount gets called)
> 
> I would say this fs should amount to a high percentage of dirty data.
> as its a very active fs read/write/delete...

So this probably relates mostly to how the vm changes have affected flushing
of data out to disk.

Steve