From: Craig Tierney <ctierney@hpti.com>
To: Jeremy Higdon <jeremy@sgi.com>
Cc: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Question about Qlogic performance in 2.6 kernel
Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2004 06:41:08 -0600 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1097757667.2939.9.camel@localhost.localdomain> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20041014030340.GA290349@sgi.com>
On Wed, 2004-10-13 at 21:03, Jeremy Higdon wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 13, 2004 at 06:28:20PM -0600, Craig Tierney wrote:
> > I am seeing a large disparity in reads and writes from
> > my Raid box under the 2.6 kernel. I have tried this from
> > an Itanium box runing RHEL 4 beta and an Opteron box running
> > SUSE 9.1 professional. In both cases I am using 2 qlogic
> > QLA2200F HBAs. Each HBA talks to one lun from the array, and
> > I use dm to create a filesystem.
> >
> > Using lmdd to create a single stream of IO, I see 190 MB/s for
> > writes, but only 55 MB/s for reads. The vendor says reads and
> > writes can be as much as 300 MB/s if I had the right HBAs, but
> > the write performance is good for 2 1 Gb/s HBAs.
> >
> > I tried this with a 2.4 kernel on a dual Xeon box. Performance
> > was 150 MB/s for both reads and writes. The read performance was
> > that high only after I changed /proc/sys/vm/max-readahead to 1023.
> >
> > I tried changing the readahead size in 2.6 using blockdev. The
> > readahead was much larger by default than the 2.4 kernel. However,
> > no matter how large I set the readahead (as large as 1 MB), the
> > read performance did not change.
> >
> > I read on the kernel list that in the linux-2.6.9-rc3, some changes
> > to the readahead code path had been merged that was supposed to
> > simplify the logic. I tried the patch to see if affected performance.
> > It did not.
> >
> > Does anyone have some suggestions on how to improve the read performance
> > under 2.6?
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Craig
>
>
> It's my experience that changing readahead on devices under a dm
> volume does not actually change the amount of readahead you get.
>
> Your results suggest that you may be having the same problem.
I read that somewhere in the docs at one point. I tried changing
the readahead on the dm and on the luns themselves. By
running blockdev, I saw that the values did indeed change for the
luns. My read tests showed no change in performance when
I read from the filesystem or each of the luns directly.
Craig
prev parent reply other threads:[~2004-10-14 12:43 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2004-10-14 0:28 Question about Qlogic performance in 2.6 kernel Craig Tierney
2004-10-14 3:03 ` Jeremy Higdon
2004-10-14 12:41 ` Craig Tierney [this message]
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=1097757667.2939.9.camel@localhost.localdomain \
--to=ctierney@hpti.com \
--cc=jeremy@sgi.com \
--cc=linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org \
/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.