From: djani22@dynamicweb.hu
To: Neil Brown <neilb@cse.unsw.edu.au>
Cc: linux-raid@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: perfomance question.
Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2005 17:20:38 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <006f01c5a40b$03c58900$0400a8c0@LocalHost> (raw)
In-Reply-To: 17156.5547.61133.39733@cse.unsw.edu.au
Thanks for trying to help me!
My problem is (looks like) solved.
It was a kernel problem. (I think...)
When I switch to 2.6.13-rc6 (from rc3), the problem is gone!
It is very interesting!
I use SWRAID to distribute equal load to nodes.
(raid0 chunksize 32k)
In my system with 2.6.13-rc3 the "node-3" gets much more (4x - 5x) read
requests, but dont know why, dont ask! :-)
First I think, the XFS's log is somehow always on 3 rd chunk.
I send this question to XFS-list too, and get this answer:
"The XFS log is always write, except recoverying." - Thats right!
Next idea is to break more the 32k chunks, and send this previous letter to
here.
But I have more problems (network layer-bug) with 13-rc3, and try the newer
kernel, and the problem is gone. :-)
It looks like some network issue.
Thanks
Janos
----- Original Message -----
From: "Neil Brown" <neilb@cse.unsw.edu.au>
To: <djani22@dynamicweb.hu>
Cc: <linux-raid@vger.kernel.org>
Sent: Thursday, August 18, 2005 6:59 AM
Subject: Re: perfomance question.
> On Tuesday August 16, djani22@dynamicweb.hu wrote:
> > Hello list,
> >
> > I have performance problem. (again) :-)
> >
> > What chunk size is better in raid5, and raid0?
> > The lot of small chunks, or some bigger?
>
> This is highly dependant one workload and hardware performance.
> The best thing to do is develop a test that simulates your real
> workload and run it with various stripe sizes, and see which one wins.
>
> I suspect there would be very little gain in going to very small chunk
> sizes (<16k). Anywhere between there and 1Meg is worth trying.
>
> mdadm uses a default of 64k which is probably not too bad for most
> situations, but I cannot promise it being optimal for any.
>
> Sorry I cannot be more helpful.
>
> Your performance problem may not be chunk-size related. Maybe
> increasing the readahead (with blockdev) would help...
>
> NeilBrown
> -
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-raid" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2005-08-18 15:20 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 20+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <20050717182650.24540.patches@notabene>
2005-07-17 8:27 ` [PATCH md ] When resizing an array, we need to update resync_max_sectors as well as size NeilBrown
2005-07-17 12:10 ` Found a new bug! djani22
2005-07-17 22:13 ` Neil Brown
2005-07-17 22:31 ` djani22
2005-08-14 22:38 ` djani22
2005-08-15 1:21 ` Neil Brown
2005-08-15 10:50 ` djani22
2005-08-16 13:54 ` perfomance question djani22
2005-08-16 14:30 ` RAID6 Query Colonel Hell
2005-08-16 15:40 ` dean gaudet
2005-08-16 16:44 ` Colonel Hell
2005-08-18 4:59 ` perfomance question Neil Brown
2005-08-18 15:20 ` djani22 [this message]
2005-08-18 4:34 ` Found a new bug! Neil Brown
2005-08-18 15:39 ` djani22
2005-08-20 9:55 ` Oops in raid1? djani22
2005-08-20 15:53 ` Pallai Roland
2005-08-20 16:26 ` djani22
2005-08-20 16:50 ` Pallai Roland
2005-08-20 16:57 ` djani22
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to='006f01c5a40b$03c58900$0400a8c0@LocalHost' \
--to=djani22@dynamicweb.hu \
--cc=linux-raid@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=neilb@cse.unsw.edu.au \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.