On Wed, Apr 06, 2005 at 10:39:22AM -0700, Konrad Schroder wrote: > On Wed, 6 Apr 2005, Daniel Carosone wrote: > > >I *think* due to this change, LFS seems to be taking inordinately more > >CPU (sys) time than when I was running tests last night. > > Hm, that's possible...that patch appears to be suboptimal, though without > it my test box wedges within a few minutes of multiple simultaneous "tar | > tar". FWIW, my testing method was essentially running a bunch of parallel local rsyncs of pkgsrc into /mnt/[a-z]/, including distfiles. That, plus a simultaneous "cd /mnt/a; pax -rwl . /mnt/x" or two to create hard-link trees within the LFS (and touch all the existing inodes to up link count), and also a copy of postmark running just for good measure. After I had, say 5 or 6 full copies of pkgsrc in there, I'd rm earlier trees and start a new rsync, to give the cleaner something to do. This pretty closely matches my intended workload, too. This ran quite happily for a couple of hours or so until I deliberately let the fs fill, and even for perhaps 10-15 mins after that with postmark complaining about errors writing some files (ENOSPC, I assume) before it locked up. > chs dislikes the patch for another reason, and he and I are talking > about how the situation might be improved. Stay tuned :^) Shall do; I also intend to test on an SMP LOCKDEBUG machine, though the above was not. -- Dan.
Attachment:
pgpcqryjkWNId.pgp
Description: PGP signature