Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*Read\s+performance\s+issues\s+with\s+2\.6\.0test5\?\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*Read\s+performance\s+issues\s+with\s+2\.6\.0test5\?\s*$/: 14 ]

Total 14 documents matching your query.

1. Read performance issues with 2.6.0test5? (score: 1): Author: Frank Hellmann <frank@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2003 15:55:58 +0200; I am currently trying out kernel 2.6.0test5.1.36 (the one from the Redhat site). After patching in the latest QLogic FibreChannel drivers (8.0.0.4) and running performance tests I was wondering abou; /archives/xfs/2003-09/msg00166.html (9,147 bytes)
2. Re: Read performance issues with 2.6.0test5? (score: 1): Author: Austin Gonyou <austin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2003 11:37:20 -0500; I actually have an Infortrend. So this is interesting to me. I have qla2300's and Qla2200's on 4 different machines. All devices are attached to SilkWorm 2800 switches and I have two large volumes pr; /archives/xfs/2003-09/msg00168.html (10,876 bytes)
3. Re: Read performance issues with 2.6.0test5? (score: 1): Author: Greg Freemyer <freemyer-ml@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: 22 Sep 2003 14:03:38 -0400; If the filesystem is of no value, you could also do you dd to the raw MD volume. If that has similar problems then you can forget about xfs as the bottleneck. Greg -- Greg Freemyer; /archives/xfs/2003-09/msg00171.html (8,957 bytes)
4. Re: Read performance issues with 2.6.0test5? (score: 1): Author: Seth Mos <knuffie@xxxxxxxxx>; Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2003 09:29:55 +0200; That is a bit weird result, isn't it? On the hand-patched 2.4.20-18.9 Kernel with XFS 1.3.0pre4 I'll get much better read performance and about similar write performance. I checked if there are any i; /archives/xfs/2003-09/msg00183.html (8,418 bytes)
5. Re: Read performance issues with 2.6.0test5? (score: 1): Author: Frank Hellmann <frank@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2003 14:44:04 +0200; Hi Seth! It seems that this only applies to the 2.4 kernel, does it? On my 2.6 installation there is no such entry in the /proc fs. Cheers, Frank... Seth Mos wrote: At 15:55 22-9-2003 +0200, Frank He; /archives/xfs/2003-09/msg00190.html (9,935 bytes)
6. Re: Read performance issues with 2.6.0test5? (score: 1): Author: Frank Hellmann <frank@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2003 14:50:06 +0200; Good suggestion and guess what? Performance is bad on the raw device as well. So it is not an XFS issue... Sorry for the wrong guess... Cheers, Frank... Greg Freemyer wrote: On Mon, 2003-09-22 at 12; /archives/xfs/2003-09/msg00191.html (9,952 bytes)
7. Re: Read performance issues with 2.6.0test5? (score: 1): Author: Austin Gonyou <austin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2003 11:07:56 -0500; I thought this is what you might see. I'd suggest *not* using MD in the manner you are, and just letting the Infortrend Controller do the striping. It will be better for you. If you have the updated; /archives/xfs/2003-09/msg00199.html (10,318 bytes)
8. Read performance issues with 2.6.0test5? (score: 1): Author: Frank Hellmann <frank@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2003 15:55:58 +0200; I am currently trying out kernel 2.6.0test5.1.36 (the one from the Redhat site). After patching in the latest QLogic FibreChannel drivers (8.0.0.4) and running performance tests I was wondering abou; /archives/xfs/2003-09/msg00441.html (9,147 bytes)
9. Re: Read performance issues with 2.6.0test5? (score: 1): Author: Austin Gonyou <austin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2003 11:37:20 -0500; I actually have an Infortrend. So this is interesting to me. I have qla2300's and Qla2200's on 4 different machines. All devices are attached to SilkWorm 2800 switches and I have two large volumes pr; /archives/xfs/2003-09/msg00443.html (10,876 bytes)
10. Re: Read performance issues with 2.6.0test5? (score: 1): Author: Greg Freemyer <freemyer-ml@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: 22 Sep 2003 14:03:38 -0400; If the filesystem is of no value, you could also do you dd to the raw MD volume. If that has similar problems then you can forget about xfs as the bottleneck. Greg -- Greg Freemyer; /archives/xfs/2003-09/msg00446.html (8,957 bytes)
11. Re: Read performance issues with 2.6.0test5? (score: 1): Author: Seth Mos <knuffie@xxxxxxxxx>; Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2003 09:29:55 +0200; That is a bit weird result, isn't it? On the hand-patched 2.4.20-18.9 Kernel with XFS 1.3.0pre4 I'll get much better read performance and about similar write performance. I checked if there are any i; /archives/xfs/2003-09/msg00458.html (8,418 bytes)
12. Re: Read performance issues with 2.6.0test5? (score: 1): Author: Frank Hellmann <frank@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2003 14:44:04 +0200; Hi Seth! It seems that this only applies to the 2.4 kernel, does it? On my 2.6 installation there is no such entry in the /proc fs. Cheers, Frank... Seth Mos wrote: At 15:55 22-9-2003 +0200, Frank He; /archives/xfs/2003-09/msg00465.html (9,935 bytes)
13. Re: Read performance issues with 2.6.0test5? (score: 1): Author: Frank Hellmann <frank@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2003 14:50:06 +0200; Good suggestion and guess what? Performance is bad on the raw device as well. So it is not an XFS issue... Sorry for the wrong guess... Cheers, Frank... Greg Freemyer wrote: On Mon, 2003-09-22 at 12; /archives/xfs/2003-09/msg00466.html (9,952 bytes)
14. Re: Read performance issues with 2.6.0test5? (score: 1): Author: Austin Gonyou <austin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2003 11:07:56 -0500; I thought this is what you might see. I'd suggest *not* using MD in the manner you are, and just letting the Infortrend Controller do the striping. It will be better for you. If you have the updated; /archives/xfs/2003-09/msg00474.html (10,318 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 14
Page: [1]