[Linux-cluster] |Optimizing DLM Speed

David Teigland teigland at redhat.com
Wed May 18 18:12:34 UTC 2011

On Wed, May 18, 2011 at 06:52:24PM +0100, Steven Whitehouse wrote:
> > >> Is there any progress on tuning the size of the tables (RHEL5) to allow 
> > >> larger values and see if they help things as far as caching goes?
> > >>
> > > There is a bz open, 
> > 
> > I thought so, but I can't find it.
> > 
> Its #678102, which you are on the cc list of. It probably needs a RHEL5
> bug as well. Bryn posted a patch to it to make the change, but I'm not
> sure of the current status. I'm copying in Dave Teigland so that he can
> comment on the current status.
> > > and you should ask for that to be linked to one of
> > > your support cases, if it hasn't already been. I thought we'd concluded
> > > though that this didn't actually affect your particular workload.
> > 
> > Increasing them to 4096 hasn't but larger numbers might.

I'd suggest applying Bryn's vmalloc patch, and trying a higher value to
see if it has any effect.  If it does, we can certainly get that patch and
larger default values queued up for various releases.


More information about the Linux-cluster mailing list