On Sun, Jan 4, 2009 at 7:59 PM, Mike McGrath mmcgrath@redhat.com wrote:
On Sat, 3 Jan 2009, Matt Domsch wrote:
On Sun, Jan 04, 2009 at 03:02:55AM +0000, Kostas Georgiou wrote:
On Sat, Jan 03, 2009 at 06:32:38PM -0600, Matt Domsch wrote:
What ext3 journaling options are enabled (e.g. what does 'mount'
say)?
If it's data=ordered (the default), that's OK. If it's data=journal, then all the data gets written twice (first to the journal, then the journal to the disk), which is really really slow, and the size of
the
journal would really make a difference too.
For an NFS server (assuming that you aren't exporting as async) data=journal can give you better performance than anything else actually. The NFS howto has a brief note in the performance section about this.
Yes, if the slowness is seen by applications on the client side of the NFS server, data=journal on the NFS server can help.
Mike, your tests were all on the local file system, not across an NFS connection, right?
Correct, though (obviously) we're seeing the slownees remotely as well.
-Mike
Fedora-infrastructure-list mailing list Fedora-infrastructure-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-infrastructure-list
Hi,
I've had no previous experience with such issues but here are my 2 cents IMHO if the slowness is seen locally as well as remotely then i would start thinking about filesystem options, or even consider a different filesystem. I think that you need to eliminate first the HW issues (raid, disk speed, etc) then look more into fs specific options wich were discussed in several previous emails