From: Jakob Oestergaard <jakob@unthought.net>
To: Gregory Leblanc <gleblanc@linuxweasel.com>
Cc: Vladimir Milovanovic <vlad@webmail.co.za>,
linux-raid <linux-raid@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Tiobench results LOWER with more threads
Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2002 13:19:18 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20021018111918.GC7875@unthought.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20021018023137.GC18294@peeps.cable.rcn.com>
On Thu, Oct 17, 2002 at 07:31:37PM -0700, Gregory Leblanc wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 17, 2002 at 11:50:14PM +0200, Jakob Oestergaard wrote:
> > On Tue, Oct 15, 2002 at 10:20:55AM +0200, Vladimir Milovanovic wrote:
> > > OK, just joined the list and rad the faq, and something caught my eye.
> > > Tiobench results are apparently supposed to INCREASE when there are more
> > > threads.
> >
> > No, what gave you that idea?
> >
> > It is so much easier for the kernel to handle one sequential stream of
> > I/O, instead of many streams.
> >
> > If you have more than one stream, you need to seek. Seeking is bad. One
> > sequential I/O is almost always (with the notable exception of RAID-1
> > reads) faster in total sustained throughput, and always (as in really
> > always) faster in per-thread sustained throughput.
>
> Err, so are you saying that a single sequential I/O is slower on RAID
> 1 when compared with a single disk? That doesn't make a lot of
> sense. There -are- instances where parallel I/O is required. In
> these cases, any RAID-1 should be much faster than a single disk, as
> should RAID 10. I'm not sure that RAID 5 should give a similar
> benefit, but given the cost of disks, I don't care about RAID 5.
The exception I made was:
"One sequential I/O is almost always (with the notable exception of
RAID-1 reads) faster in total sustained throughput,..."
What I wanted to say was: One sequential reader is usually faster than N
readers are in total. Except on an N-disk RAID-1, where up to N readers
will be faster in total than one reader.
An N-disk RAID-1 will scale with up to N readers.
There's some fuzz on these measurements, because a sequential read on a
filesystem is not a sequential read on the disk (because of fs
metadata), so therefore often a single threaded read on an N-disk RAID-1
will be faster than on a single disk - and maybe RAID-1 will not scale
up to N readers, but only N-1, but that all depends on the fs - and
let's not go too deep into that for now :)
--
................................................................
: jakob@unthought.net : And I see the elder races, :
:.........................: putrid forms of man :
: Jakob Østergaard : See him rise and claim the earth, :
: OZ9ABN : his downfall is at hand. :
:.........................:............{Konkhra}...............:
-
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
prev parent reply other threads:[~2002-10-18 11:19 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2002-10-15 8:20 Tiobench results LOWER with more threads Vladimir Milovanovic
2002-10-17 21:50 ` Jakob Oestergaard
2002-10-18 2:31 ` Gregory Leblanc
2002-10-18 2:52 ` Maurice Hilarius
2002-10-18 7:48 ` Vladimir Milovanovic
2002-10-18 11:19 ` Jakob Oestergaard [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=20021018111918.GC7875@unthought.net \
--to=jakob@unthought.net \
--cc=gleblanc@linuxweasel.com \
--cc=linux-raid@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=vlad@webmail.co.za \
/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.