From: Peter Kirk <pwk.linuxfan@gmx.de>
To: linux-lvm@sistina.com
Subject: System goes very slow (was: Re: [linux-lvm] Test of LVM)
Date: Sun, 27 May 2001 04:56:24 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <01052704562400.02599@notch> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20010526154903.A1477@dardhal.mired.net>
This is what bonnie gives me
Am Samstag, 26. Mai 2001 17:49 schrieben Sie:
> On Saturday, 26 May 2001, at 14:35:45 +0200,
>
> Peter Kirk wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > I have two disks in one Logical Volume, and all "Partitions" in the LV
> > are striped over the disks, the two disks are both:
>
> I suppose you mean "a VG consiting of the two disks, with LV created with
> --stripe=2, that is like a RAID-0 would do" :)
I have no idea of what I mean, in the setup with SuSE`s installer (yast)
there was this place to set the stripe option, which I set to two.
>
> > Now I would like to know, how to test if my LVM is performing as it
> > should, [...]
>
> Depending on what you want to test, you can use several methods/tools
> ranging from dd'ing data in and out, recursive copying, hdparm, bonnie,
> bonnie++ and mongo. Check http://bulma.lug.net/static to see some
> filesystem-oriented test you could try.
I tried bonnie, is this result what I should have expected ?
root@notch:/home/pwk > bonnie -s 1024MB
Bonnie 1.2: File './Bonnie.2815', size: 1073741824, volumes: 1
Writing with putc()... done: 3270 kB/s 35.4 %CPU
Rewriting... done: 1505 kB/s 19.3 %CPU
Writing intelligently... done: 4682 kB/s 11.4 %CPU
[I stopped bonnie here, do you need more output ?]
I don't know what this test does, but surely more than 3MB/sec of writing
performance should be ??
I'm not certain if this problem I am about to describe is LVM specific, but I
think that the most propable cause:
When I do e.g. a run of bonnie (-> My disks have work to do), the entire
System goes *extremly* slow (each key hit takes about 1sec to apear on the
terminal, from the command top to the coming up of the ascii chart there is a
time gap of ~20sec...)
As Andreas Dilger pointed out, I can't have to disks on one Controler doing
things simultanously. Might this somehow be the reason why my systems snails
on disk usage ?
There is something I tested in such times of slowness, and that is the output
of top
top [normal running system + X + KDE]
319 root 17 0 196M 196M 2352 S 0.7 39.2 6:33 X
2586 pwk 12 0 12856 12M 11092 S 0.1 2.5 0:43 kdeinit
2887 root 16 0 980 980 764 R 0.1 0.1 0:00 top
1 root 9 0 216 216 180 S 0.0 0.0 0:07 init
2 root 9 0 0 0 0 SW 0.0 0.0 0:00 keventd
3 root 9 0 0 0 0 SW 0.0 0.0 0:35 kswapd
4 root 9 0 0 0 0 SW 0.0 0.0 0:00 kreclaimd
5 root 9 0 0 0 0 SW 0.0 0.0 0:14 bdflush
6 root 9 0 0 0 0 SW 0.0 0.0 0:07 kupdated
top [system with bonnie running]
2815 root 17 0 544 544 440 R 37.5 0.1 4:50 bonnie
319 root 16 0 196M 196M 2352 R 15.4 39.2 6:01 X
2599 pwk 15 0 19344 18M 12580 S 12.5 3.7 1:58 kmail
2189 pwk 10 0 11540 11M 7048 S 9.9 2.2 3:21 kmix
865 pwk 9 0 3168 3168 2272 S 1.7 0.6 0:53 artsd
896 pwk 9 0 11436 11M 10220 S 1.1 2.2 1:29 kdeinit
893 pwk 9 0 14448 14M 12344 S 0.9 2.8 1:03 kdeinit
2885 pwk 12 0 980 980 764 R 0.7 0.1 0:00 top
891 pwk 10 0 14916 14M 12904 S 0.1 2.9 0:40 kdeinit
2586 pwk 9 0 12840 12M 11076 S 0.1 2.5 0:42 kdeinit
1 root 9 0 216 216 180 S 0.0 0.0 0:07 init
As you see, all processes seam to take much more CPU time when bonnie is
running [noting that I am not using any of the programms activly, there are
only running].
I would realy love to get rid of this problem, so please help. If you think I
should try one of my HD on the second controler, could you please give me
some hints of how not to destroy my linux system by doing this (where do I
have to change things)
>
> My (little) experience with stripped LVs is that throughput is quite lower
> that the achieved with kernel's software RAID-0: the latter achieved
> nearly the sum of the disks's R/W KB/s, while stripped LVs performance
> felt quite behind.
>
> But this was a _very_ simple test with a Pentium75 machine, with 16 MB RAM
> and two disks, 400 MB one and 800 MB the other (tested with bonnie). So
> results can be far from true under more realistic setups :).
>
Can anybody comment on the speed difference between softraid0 and LVM ?
Thank you in advance
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2001-05-27 2:56 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2001-05-26 12:35 [linux-lvm] Test of LVM Peter Kirk
2001-05-26 15:49 ` Jos� Luis Domingo L�pez
2001-05-27 2:56 ` Peter Kirk [this message]
2001-05-27 7:43 ` System goes very slow (was: Re: [linux-lvm] Test of LVM) Dominique LARCHEY-WENDLING
2001-05-27 13:33 ` Peter Kirk
2001-05-26 16:40 ` [linux-lvm] Test of LVM Andreas Dilger
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=01052704562400.02599@notch \
--to=pwk.linuxfan@gmx.de \
--cc=linux-lvm@sistina.com \
/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.