All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Timothy Miller <miller@techsource.com>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: PROBLEM: Consistently slower 3ware RAID performance under 2.6.4
Date: Mon, 05 Apr 2004 11:14:39 -0400	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <407177DF.2040202@techsource.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20040402154718.43f16ea9.akpm@osdl.org>



Andrew Morton wrote:

> 
> You cannot compare 2.4 and 2.6 kernel write performance with `dd', because
> the kernels are tuned differently.  2.6 kernels are tuned to leave less
> dirty pages in memory than a 2.4 kernel.  Hence when your dd has finished,
> 40% of memory will be dirty (needing writeout) under 2.6, but this figure
> is 60% on 2.4.
> 
> So the 2.6 kernel does more writeout during the dd run and less writeout
> after dd has finished.  The 2.4 kernel does less writeout during the dd run
> and more writeout after dd has finished.
> 
> To compare IO performance you'll need to set 2.6's /proc/sys/vm/dirty_ratio
> to 60 and /proc/sys/vm/dirty_async_ratio to 30.  Or use write-and-fsync
> from http://www.zip.com.au/~akpm/linux/patches/stuff/ext3-tools.tar.gz with
> the `-f' option.
> 
> I don't know why the read bandwidth appears to be lower.  Try increasing
> the readahead with `blockdev --setra'?


That's odd.  I've tried different mem= kernel parameters with no change 
in throughput under 2.4.  That is, 1G vs. 128M vs. 32M all perform the 
same under 2.4 when doing dd to a block device.  On the other hand, 
available RAM makes a HUGE difference when doing dd to a _file_system_.

I haven't tried that under 2.6 yet.

Anyhow, I chose a 1GB test run so as diminish cache effects and file 
system overhead.  Is my logic flawed here?

Thanks.


      reply	other threads:[~2004-04-05 14:54 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 3+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2004-04-02 15:41 PROBLEM: Consistently slower 3ware RAID performance under 2.6.4 Timothy Miller
2004-04-02 23:47 ` Andrew Morton
2004-04-05 15:14   ` Timothy Miller [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=407177DF.2040202@techsource.com \
    --to=miller@techsource.com \
    --cc=akpm@osdl.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@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.