From: David Chinner <dgc@sgi.com>
To: "Mr. Berkley Shands" <bshands@exegy.com>
Cc: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@sandeen.net>, Dave Lloyd <dlloyd@exegy.com>,
linux-xfs@oss.sgi.com
Subject: Re: XFS and 2.6.18 -> 2.6.20-rc3
Date: Tue, 9 Jan 2007 12:22:12 +1100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20070109012212.GG44411608@melbourne.sgi.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <45A27BC7.2020709@exegy.com>
On Mon, Jan 08, 2007 at 11:13:43AM -0600, Mr. Berkley Shands wrote:
> My testbench is a 4 core Opteron (dual 275's) into
> two LSI8408E SAS controllers, into 16 Seagate 7200.10 320GB satas.
> Redhat ES4.4 (Centos 4.4). A slightly newer parted is needed
> than the contemporary of Moses that is shipped with the O/S.
>
> I have a standard burn in script that takes the 4 4-drive raid0's
> and puts a GPT label on them, aligns the partitions to stripe
> boundary's. It then proceeds to write 8GB files concurrently
> onto all 4 raid drives.
How many files are being written at the same time to each filesystem?
buffered or direct I/O? I/O size? how much memory in the machine?
What size I/Os are actually hitting the disks?
> Under 2.6.18.1 the write speeds start at 265MB/Sec and decrease
> mostly monotonically down to ~160MB/Sec, indicating that
> the files start on the outside (fastest tracks) and work in.
So you are filling the entire disk with this test?
> All 4 raids are within 7-8MB/Sec of each other (usually they
> are identical in speed).
>
> By the time of 2.6.20-rc3, the same testbench shows
> a 10% across the board decrease in throughput for writes.
> Reads are unaffected.
Reads being unaffected indicates the files are not being fragmented
badly.
> But now the allocation order for virgin file systems are random,
How did you determine this?
> usually starting at the slow 140MB/Sec, then bouncing up to 220MB/Sec,
> then around and around. No two raids get the same write speeds at the
> same time.
>
> Dave Lloyd (our in-house Idea Guy) looked at the allocation groups...
> Non-sequential, random...
>
> What data would you like to see?
First thing to do is run a set of write tests to the _raw_ devices,
not to the filesystem so we can rule out a driver/hardware problem.
Can you do something as simple as concurrent writes to each raid lun
to see if .18 and .20 perform the same?
> The run logs from 2.6.18.1 and 2.6.20-rc3?
> Want the scripts?
Yes please.
Cheers,
Dave.
--
Dave Chinner
Principal Engineer
SGI Australian Software Group
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2007-01-09 1:23 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2007-01-08 17:13 XFS and 2.6.18 -> 2.6.20-rc3 Mr. Berkley Shands
2007-01-08 17:17 ` Eric Sandeen
2007-01-09 1:22 ` David Chinner [this message]
2007-01-09 7:25 ` David Chinner
2007-01-10 13:29 ` Mr. Berkley Shands
2007-01-10 22:08 ` David Chinner
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=20070109012212.GG44411608@melbourne.sgi.com \
--to=dgc@sgi.com \
--cc=bshands@exegy.com \
--cc=dlloyd@exegy.com \
--cc=linux-xfs@oss.sgi.com \
--cc=sandeen@sandeen.net \
/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.