Date: Tue, 01 Jan 2013 13:04:15 +0100 From: Dominic Fandrey <kamikaze@bsdforen.de> To: Konstantin Belousov <kostikbel@gmail.com> Cc: FreeBSD <freebsd-stable@freebsd.org>, Chris Rees <utisoft@gmail.com> Subject: Re: Post 9.1 stable file system problems Message-ID: <50E2D0BF.4010407@bsdforen.de> In-Reply-To: <20130101065145.GT82219@kib.kiev.ua> References: <50E225DF.3090004@bsdforen.de> <CADLo838mUdr96zQw2bTPUFWwUNoF=Zb4akEL6FfasQDOW5tN8A@mail.gmail.com> <50E23283.8010407@bsdforen.de> <50E23647.6000309@bsdforen.de> <20130101065145.GT82219@kib.kiev.ua>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 01/01/2013 07:51, Konstantin Belousov wrote: > On Tue, Jan 01, 2013 at 02:05:11AM +0100, Dominic Fandrey wrote: >> On 01/01/2013 01:49, Dominic Fandrey wrote: >>> On 01/01/2013 01:29, Chris Rees wrote: >>>> On 1 Jan 2013 00:01, "Dominic Fandrey" <kamikaze@bsdforen.de> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> I have a Tinderbox that I just updated to the current RELENG_9. >>>>> Following the update build times for packages have increased by a >>>>> factor between 5 and 20. I.e. I have packages that used to build in >>>>> 5 minutes and now take an hour. >>>>> >>>>> I'm suspecting the file system ever since I saw that the majority of CPU >>>>> load was caused by ls when I looked at top (more than 2 minutes of CPU >>>>> time were counted that moment). The majority of the time most of the CPU >>>>> load is caused by bsdtar, pkg_add, qmake-qt4, etc. Without exception >>>>> tools that access a lot of files. >>>>> >>>>> The file system on which packages are built is nullfs mounted from >>>>> an async mounted UFS. I turned async off, to no avail. >>>>> >>>>> /usr/src/UPDATING says that there were nullfs optimisations. So I >>>>> think this is where the problem originates. I might hack the tinderbox to >>>>> use 'ln -s' or set it up for NFS to verify this. >>>> >>>> Is your kernel newer than the Jail? The converse causes problems. >>> >>> I ran makeJail for all jails after updating. >>> >>> I also seem to have similar problems when building in the host-system. >>> The unzip for openjdk-7 has just passed the 11 minutes CPU time mark. >>> On my notebook it takes less than 10 seconds. >> >> Just set WRKOBJDIRPREFIX to a tmpfs on the Tinderbox host system >> and the extract takes less than a second. Originally WRKOBJDIRPREFIX >> also pointed to a nullfs mount. >> >> Afterwards I pointed WRKOBJDIRPREFIX to a UFS file system (without >> nullfs involvement). The entire make extract took 20s. >> >> So still faster by at least factor 30 than running it on a nullfs mount >> (I eventually SIGINTed so I don't know how long it would've run). > > Start providing some useful debugging information ? > > At least dmesg, mount -v and sysctl kern.maxvnodes, > 'sysctl vfs | grep vnodes' outputs. Started roughly about the same time the make extract was started. # while /bin/sleep 60; do sysctl vfs | grep vnodes; done vfs.freevnodes: 50577 vfs.wantfreevnodes: 51587 vfs.numvnodes: 102006 vfs.freevnodes: 51583 vfs.wantfreevnodes: 51587 vfs.numvnodes: 104237 vfs.freevnodes: 51592 vfs.wantfreevnodes: 51587 vfs.numvnodes: 104319 vfs.freevnodes: 51557 vfs.wantfreevnodes: 51587 vfs.numvnodes: 105367 ^C > What is shown when you press ^T while slow process runs on nullfs ? I sent the SIGINFO at the end of minutes 1, 2, 3 and 4 # make extract ===> License GPLv2 accepted by the user ===> Found saved configuration for openjdk-7.9.05_1 ===> Extracting for openjdk-7.9.05_2 => SHA256 Checksum OK for openjdk-7u6-fcs-src-b24-09_aug_2012.zip. => SHA256 Checksum OK for apache-ant-1.8.4-bin.zip. ===> openjdk-7.9.05_2 depends on file: /usr/local/bin/unzip - found load: 2.92 cmd: unzip 44418 [running] 59.75r 0.20u 59.02s 100% 4412k load: 3.10 cmd: unzip 44418 [running] 118.53r 0.35u 117.39s 100% 4412k load: 3.04 cmd: unzip 44418 [running] 177.95r 0.48u 176.17s 99% 4424k load: 3.12 cmd: unzip 44418 [running] 237.81r 0.74u 235.00s 100% 4424k ^C > Was the ^C reaction by terminating the process instant ? Yes. -- A: Because it fouls the order in which people normally read text. Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing? A: Top-posting. Q: What is the most annoying thing on usenet and in e-mail?
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?50E2D0BF.4010407>