All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@intel.com>
To: "Li, Shaohua" <shaohua.li@intel.com>
Cc: Ted Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>,
	"linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org" <linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org>,
	Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>, LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	"linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>,
	NeilBrown <neilb@suse.de>,
	linux-raid@vger.kernel.org, Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>
Subject: Re: ext4 data=writeback performs worse than data=ordered now
Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2011 09:00:10 +0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20111215010010.GA14805@localhost> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1323910977.22361.423.camel@sli10-conroe>

> I found sometimes one disk hasn't any request inflight, but we can't
> send request to the disk, because the scsi host's resource (the queue
> depth) is used out, looks we send too many requests from other disks and
> leave some disks starved. The resource imbalance in scsi isn't a new
> problem, even 3.1 has such issue, so I'd think writeback introduces new
> imbalance between the 12 disks. In fact, if I limit disk's queue depth
> to 10, in this way the 12 disks will not impact each other in scsi
> layer, the performance regression fully disappears for both writeback
> and order mode.

I observe similar issue in MD. The default

        q->nr_requests = BLKDEV_MAX_RQ;

is too small for large arrays, and I end up doing

        echo 1280 > /sys/block/md0/queue/nr_requests

in my tests.

Thanks,
Fengguang

  reply	other threads:[~2011-12-15  1:00 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 15+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2011-12-14 13:34 ext4 data=writeback performs worse than data=ordered now Wu Fengguang
     [not found] ` <20111214140025.GA19650@localhost>
2011-12-14 14:03   ` Wu Fengguang
2011-12-14 14:30 ` Ted Ts'o
2011-12-14 14:49   ` Wu Fengguang
2011-12-14 14:52   ` Tao Ma
2011-12-14 15:02     ` Wu Fengguang
2011-12-15  1:02   ` Shaohua Li
2011-12-15  1:00     ` Wu Fengguang [this message]
2011-12-15  1:27       ` NeilBrown
2011-12-15  1:34         ` Wu Fengguang
2011-12-15  5:02         ` Wu Fengguang
2011-12-15  1:20     ` Darrick J. Wong
2011-12-15  1:42       ` Shaohua Li
2011-12-15 18:10         ` Darrick J. Wong
2011-12-16  1:47           ` Shaohua Li

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=20111215010010.GA14805@localhost \
    --to=fengguang.wu@intel.com \
    --cc=axboe@kernel.dk \
    --cc=jack@suse.cz \
    --cc=linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-raid@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=neilb@suse.de \
    --cc=shaohua.li@intel.com \
    --cc=tytso@mit.edu \
    /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.