- 1. linux 2.4.2-XFS (score: 1)
- Author: xxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Tue, 22 May 2001 11:04:55 -0500 (CDT)
- I found your name and address on a thread about linux & xfs. I'm also seeing the "kernel: __alloc_pages: 0-order allocation failed." error on a 2.4.2-XFS system I just setup. We're comparing ext2, r
- /archives/xfs/2001-05/msg00971.html (8,503 bytes)
- 2. Re: linux 2.4.2-XFS (score: 1)
- Author: xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 22 May 2001 11:23:05 -0500
- Try the attached patch - it is against the 2.4.4 development tree, but it should work in the release tree as well. I am still benchmarking and scratching my head about this one, but it should help me
- /archives/xfs/2001-05/msg00973.html (9,949 bytes)
- 3. Re: linux 2.4.2-XFS (score: 1)
- Author: ord@xxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 22 May 2001 11:30:00 -0500 (CDT)
- The attached files were created with "/cat /proc/slabinfo" (my 2.4.2-XFS doesn't show a slabcache). slab.1 was written immediately after iozone started, and slab.2 immediately after the first : __al
- /archives/xfs/2001-05/msg00974.html (10,568 bytes)
- 4. Re: linux 2.4.2-XFS (score: 1)
- Author: xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 22 May 2001 11:35:57 -0500
- Sorry slabinfo was what I meant, Hmm, I didn't get an attachment there. I am not sure it will really help you - the memory it frees is inodes, so unless you have lots of inodes in cache it will not
- /archives/xfs/2001-05/msg00975.html (11,566 bytes)
- 5. Re: linux 2.4.2-XFS (score: 1)
- Author: ord@xxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 22 May 2001 11:40:10 -0500 (CDT)
- oops...there you go. The patch you sent didn't apply with patch, but I was able to paste it in manually--building and testing the new kernel now... -Galen -- + Galen Arnold, system engineer--systems
- /archives/xfs/2001-05/msg00976.html (13,156 bytes)
- 6. Re: linux 2.4.2-XFS (score: 1)
- Author: xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 22 May 2001 12:08:43 -0500 (CDT)
- I ran "iozone -s 4000m" again with a new kernel (your attached patch). I'm getting the same errors and have attached a slab.out.gz file showing slabinfo every 1s during the test. The __alloc_pages:
- /archives/xfs/2001-05/msg00977.html (11,443 bytes)
- 7. Re: linux 2.4.2-XFS (score: 1)
- Author: xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 22 May 2001 13:31:34 -0400
- I'm seeing these, too. How would I know? I installed using the 1.0 installer. -Dave
- /archives/xfs/2001-05/msg00978.html (8,658 bytes)
- 8. Re: linux 2.4.2-XFS (score: 1)
- Author: xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 22 May 2001 13:06:33 -0500
- The "enterprise" kernel in our installer has HIGHMEM enabled, and it's installed by default if you have 4GB or more, I believe. If you do an "rpm -a | grep kernel" and see "enterprise" in any of the
- /archives/xfs/2001-05/msg00981.html (8,871 bytes)
- 9. Re: linux 2.4.2-XFS (score: 1)
- Author: een@xxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 22 May 2001 13:07:20 -0500
- Yep, looking at the first slabcache output, the patch will not help at all in this scenario. Another one for the todo list.... Steve
- /archives/xfs/2001-05/msg00982.html (9,803 bytes)
- 10. Re: linux 2.4.2-XFS (score: 1)
- Author: ord@xxxxxxx>
- Date: 22 May 2001 14:09:01 -0400
- OK, thanks. It's not. I've "only" got a 1GB. Should I switch to the Enterprise kernel? -Dave
- /archives/xfs/2001-05/msg00983.html (9,605 bytes)
- 11. Re: linux 2.4.2-XFS (score: 1)
- Author: ord@xxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 22 May 2001 14:52:17 -0500
- One more question, are you running on top of md/lvm? I see you have a lot of disk hardware connected to the box, just wondering if iozone is getting to access lots of it, or just one device out of a
- /archives/xfs/2001-05/msg00989.html (9,868 bytes)
- 12. Re: linux 2.4.2-XFS (score: 1)
- Author: ord@xxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 22 May 2001 15:01:06 -0500 (CDT)
- The disk under the hood is IBM raid array (sharks?). We're seeing them through a qlogic driver to the SAN. If you've got any tuning params. or patches for me to try, let me know. We like the perform
- /archives/xfs/2001-05/msg00990.html (11,224 bytes)
- 13. Re: linux 2.4.2-XFS (score: 1)
- Author: xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 22 May 2001 13:19:34 -0700 (PDT)
- There's a number of problems with compiling the Adaptec driver in 2.4.x. See the online kernel discussion group for multiple reports and fixes. However the error message above shows that you don't ha
- /archives/xfs/2001-05/msg00991.html (9,795 bytes)
- 14. Re: linux 2.4.2-XFS (score: 1)
- Author: <tin@xxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 22 May 2001 22:09:11 +0200
- You can probably work around these problems by disabling CONFIG_SCSI_AIC7XXX and using CONFIG_SCSI_AIC7XXX_OLD instead (only visible when the first is off) -Andi
- /archives/xfs/2001-05/msg00992.html (9,879 bytes)
- 15. Re: linux 2.4.2-XFS (score: 1)
- Author: ord@xxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 22 May 2001 16:25:11 -0400
- Or install the db1-devel rpm. -- Russell Cattelan -- Digital Elves inc. -- Currently on loan to SGI Linux XFS core developer.
- /archives/xfs/2001-05/msg00994.html (9,989 bytes)
- 16. Re: linux 2.4.2-XFS (score: 1)
- Author: xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 22 May 2001 16:31:14 -0400
- The pending release of XFS 1.0.1 will be RH7.1 and 2.4.4 based, and will be based primarily on what is in the development tree... once the list or problems has been whittled down. Note I'm running io
- /archives/xfs/2001-05/msg00995.html (10,696 bytes)
- 17. Re: linux 2.4.2-XFS (score: 1)
- Author: ord@xxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 22 May 2001 16:13:22 -0500
- [stuff deleted] [stuff deleted] I realize that you all have a great many other things to do and fixing non-XFS related kernel bugs is not your focus but having said that I'd really like to see the pa
- /archives/xfs/2001-05/msg00997.html (9,542 bytes)
- 18. Re: linux 2.4.2-XFS (score: 1)
- Author: xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 22 May 2001 23:22:46 +0200
- wasnt there a workaround ... by exporting the fs on the irix machine with -o 32bitclients option ? I remember I had to do this to be able to mount irix nfs shares on linux'en and Solaris 2.5 machines
- /archives/xfs/2001-05/msg00998.html (10,225 bytes)
- 19. Re: linux 2.4.2-XFS (score: 1)
- Author: t@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 22 May 2001 16:32:04 -0500
- I would really encourage you to get the 2.4.4 xfs kernel up and running, I am much happier with the code base we have there now, and we cannot yet replicate the problem with the development tree. Hm
- /archives/xfs/2001-05/msg00999.html (9,949 bytes)
- 20. Re: linux 2.4.2-XFS (score: 1)
- Author: ord@xxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 22 May 2001 16:32:18 -0500 (CDT)
- I've done just that and am seeing a good iozone run as I leave the office today. I'll have some numbers tomorrow I think... -Galen -- + Galen Arnold, system engineer--systems group arnoldg@xxxxxxxxx
- /archives/xfs/2001-05/msg01000.html (10,365 bytes)
This search system is powered by
Namazu