From: Austin Gonyou <austin@coremetrics.com>
To: linux-lvm@sistina.com
Subject: Re: [linux-lvm] LVM causing IO contention or slowdown?
Date: Sat Jan 19 01:33:01 2002 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1011425563.3118.29.camel@UberGeek> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1011414567.2241.29.camel@UberGeek>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 4502 bytes --]
As a follow up to this I've done some more testing, and will test the
rest of this weekend, using AIM db benchmark.
What I've found is that when mounting with logbufs=8 on my Quad Xeon 2MB
cache 6450 with 8 Ultra-2 Drives, 4 RAID0 volumes, two of 3 disks each
and two of 1 disk each.
The larger Volumes, the more "costly" volumes, when mounted using
logbufs=8, outperformed the same volume addressed when not under LVM
control. Not only did it out perform itself, but either WITH or WITHOUT
LVM controlling the volume, I nearly doubled my throughput to those
drives.
Here is what I'm talking about:
#With LVM management
Throughput 109.715 MB/sec (NB=137.144 MB/sec 1097.15 MBit/sec) 200
procs
#Without LVM management
Throughput 100.803 MB/sec (NB=126.004 MB/sec 1008.03 MBit/sec) 200
procs
This only happened once though and I'm not sure exactly why. Still, the
max I could get out of it for the same test more than once with LVM
enabled was around 80-85 MB/s. Still a HUGE improvement over 43/44 MB/s.
On Fri, 2002-01-18 at 22:29, Austin Gonyou wrote:
> Some disturbing things about LVM I've found. I'm not sure if this has
> anything to do with XFS or not, I'm still working on that part.
>
> Anyway, I've got an AMI MegaRAID 1600(or so, Dell PERC2/DC, and a Dell
> PERC3/DC[also ami/lsi]). I conducted a test with dbench in the following
> manner:
>
>
> 1. create a 3 drive RAID0 on the PERC.
> 2. mkfs.xfs the new "drive" as the OS sees it. (/dev/sdxx)
> 3. mount /dev/sdxx /mnt/test
> 4. chown austin:austin /mnt/test
> <login as austin>
> 5. cd /mnt/test
> 6. cp ~/dbench/client.txt .
> 7. dbench 200 (ended up at 29MB/s)
> 8. dbench 150 (ended up at 31MB/s)
> <login as root>
> 9. umount /mnt/test
> 10. fdisk /dev/sdxx
> 11. 'T' for partition type
> 12. '1' for partition #
> 13. '8e' for LVM and 'w' to save partition config.
> 14. pvcreate /dev/sdxx;vgcreate -Ay testvg /dev/sdxx
> 15. lvcreate -Cy -L 109G -n testlv testvg
> 16. mkxfs.xfs /dev/testvg/testlv
> 17. mount /dev/testvg/testlv /mnt/test
> 18. chown austin:austin /mnt/test
> <login as austin>
> 19. cp ~/dbench/client.txt .
> 20. dbench 200 (ended up at 54MB/s)
> 21. dbench 150 (ended up at 61MB/s)
>
> The disk which was made into a pv you see up there is /dev/sdxx. That
> means it was a partition. I also set it to be contiguous. This could be
> very bad for the dbench kind of test. I'm not sure. Next I did something
> similar to the above, but I removed all partitions from the physical
> device and recreated the volume using just /dev/sdx. That said, I
> retested just now and got the following:
>
> o Throughput 49.733 MB/sec (NB=62.1662 MB/sec 497.33 MBit/sec) 200
> procs
> o Throughput 43.5752 MB/sec (NB=54.469 MB/sec 435.752 MBit/sec) 150
> procs (not sure about why this is)
>
> and then on a whim...
>
> o Throughput 37.4975 MB/sec (NB=46.8719 MB/sec 374.975 MBit/sec) 250
> procs
> and again...
> o Throughput 43.4332 MB/sec (NB=54.2916 MB/sec 434.332 MBit/sec) 150
> procs
>
> Either way, these results are a far cry from what was shown above using
> Contiguous on a partition, instead of a whole disk. If there's a way to
> improve this, Please advise.
>
> And then I removed the volume from LVM control, and tested again:
>
> o Throughput 51.2596 MB/sec (NB=64.0745 MB/sec 512.596 MBit/sec) 200
> procs
> oThroughput 52.0488 MB/sec (NB=65.061 MB/sec 520.488 MBit/sec) 150
> procs
>
> Not as huge a jump as last night, but still rather far above what it is
> with LVM turned on.
>
> Anyone know why this might be?
>
>
> On Fri, 2002-01-18 at 17:08, karlheg@microsharp.com wrote:
> >
> > I had visions of using XFS on LVM volumes for our product. I would
> > like to start with some default LV sizes, and have the ability to
> > shrink and grow them as needed to meet individual requirements. For
> > this, I will need to use ext3fs. (and very stable LVM; still
> > learning about it.)
> --
> Austin Gonyou
> Systems Architect, CCNA
> Coremetrics, Inc.
> Phone: 512-698-7250
> email: austin@coremetrics.com
>
> "It is the part of a good shepherd to shear his flock, not to skin it."
> Latin Proverb
--
Austin Gonyou
Systems Architect, CCNA
Coremetrics, Inc.
Phone: 512-698-7250
email: austin@coremetrics.com
"It is the part of a good shepherd to shear his flock, not to skin it."
Latin Proverb
[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 232 bytes --]
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2002-01-19 1:33 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2002-01-18 22:30 [linux-lvm] LVM causing IO contention or slowdown? Austin Gonyou
2002-01-19 1:33 ` Austin Gonyou [this message]
2002-01-20 8:13 ` Stephen Lord
2002-01-20 23:55 ` Austin Gonyou
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=1011425563.3118.29.camel@UberGeek \
--to=austin@coremetrics.com \
--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.