Comment 153 for bug 620074
Revision history for this message
|
|
#153 |
© 2004
Canonical Ltd.
•
Terms of use
•
Data privacy
•
Contact Launchpad Support
•
Blog
•
Careers
•
System status
•
4d1350f
(Get the code!)
(In reply to comment #136)
> For those of you who have this problem what is your HZ and preemption model?
>
I'm currently using Voluntary Preemption and HZ=1000. However, I think we're probably losing focus here. Just randomly changing configurations seems like grasping at straws to me. There are far too many potentially relevant configuration options to realistically test them all. If we are going to make progress, we are going to have to use more targeted investigation.
(In reply to comment #139)
> Is there any kernel developer who can address this issue?
>
Jens Axboe has sent us a few patches although he doesn't seem to have a lot of time to dedicate to the issue. Honestly, I think we might need to find a distribution with a block layer developer on payroll who could focus on this issue until it is solved. In my discussions on #fedora-kernel, it doesn't look like Redhat has such a person. I haven't received any responses one way or another on #ubuntu-kernel with respect to Canonical.
Does anyone know of a company who might have someone with the requisite skill set to debug this issue? Jens, do you think you'll be able to sustainably work on this bug? (Thanks for your work so far, by the way)
I think it would be amazing if we could give 2.6.29 proper I/O performance. I know it's getting late considering we're at -rc3, but this bug has been with us for far too long.