Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2006 17:49:04 +0300 From: Kostik Belousov <kostikbel@gmail.com> To: Nicolas KOWALSKI <Nicolas.Kowalski@imag.fr> Cc: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org Subject: Re: [patch] giant-less quotas for UFS Message-ID: <20060410144904.GC1408@deviant.kiev.zoral.com.ua> In-Reply-To: <vqoy7ydv7lw.fsf@corbeau.imag.fr> References: <20060329152608.GB1375@deviant.kiev.zoral.com.ua> <vqoy7ydv7lw.fsf@corbeau.imag.fr>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--5G06lTa6Jq83wMTw Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Mon, Apr 10, 2006 at 04:16:27PM +0200, Nicolas KOWALSKI wrote: > Hello, >=20 > Kostik Belousov <kostikbel@gmail.com> writes: >=20 > > I already mailed about my development of the patch that > > allows for UFS with quotas to operate without Giant. Sorry if the > > repeat would be annoying. >=20 > Does this patch improve the performance of a file server, using > multiple disks, controlled by quotas, exported by NFS/Samba ? >=20 > If so, I would be really interested: our file server (4.11, but > perhaps 6.x soon), has some major slowdowns when one or multiple > user/s exceed her/his quota ; this impact every user, even those > working on another disk. I don't think that patch shall have effect on this situation (quota exceede= d). Probably, you have some other issues, esp. for 4.x, where only one process can progress in kernel mode anyway. Just guessing: do you have slow (serial) console ? Yes, I expect patch to improve overall system performance for 6.x/7 when quotas are compiled in the kernel compared with the same kernel config without patch. This was the reason for developing the change. I do not have a numerical measurement of improvement, though. I will be very glad for testing/stress testing/performance measurement for the patch. BUT, PLEASE BEWARE. Don't apply the patch for non-test machines. Kris Kennaway said the system deadlocks with patch applied. I still cannot reproduce it (and debug). In my defense I could say that I did found two issues since Kris' report. Both are fixed. Best regards, Kostik Belousov. --5G06lTa6Jq83wMTw Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.3 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQFEOnBgC3+MBN1Mb4gRAsjkAJ9B+/z7Vbh35dj+Mh8HNcD6Y56srACg1HeU yAxUdsu7R9JRUbyej4u3XWE= =XEMk -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --5G06lTa6Jq83wMTw--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20060410144904.GC1408>