From: Max Waterman <davidmaxwaterman+kernel@fastmail.co.uk>
To: Phillip Susi <psusi@cfl.rr.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: io performance...
Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2006 15:24:19 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <43CDED23.5060701@fastmail.co.uk> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <43CD2405.4070902@cfl.rr.com>
Phillip Susi wrote:
> Did you direct the program to use O_DIRECT?
I'm just using the s/w (iorate/bonnie++) with default options - I'm no
expert. I could try though.
> If not then I believe the
> problem you are seeing is that the generic block layer is not performing
> large enough readahead to keep all the disks in the array reading at
> once, because the stripe width is rather large. What stripe factor did
> you format the array using?
I left the stripe size at the default, which, I believe, is 64K bytes;
same as your fakeraid below.
I did play with 'blockdev --setra' too.
I noticed it was 256 with a single disk, and, with s/w raid, it
increased by 256 for each extra disk in the array. IE for the raid 0
array with 4 drives, it was 1024.
With h/w raid, however, it did not increase when I added disks. Should I
use 'blockdev --setra 320' (ie 64 x 5 = 320, since we're now running
RAID5 on 5 drives)?
> I have a sata fakeraid at home of two drives using a stripe factor of 64
> KB. If I don't issue O_DIRECT IO requests of at least 128 KB ( the
> stripe width ), then throughput drops significantly. If I issue
> multiple async requests of smaller size that totals at least 128 KB,
> throughput also remains high. If you only issue a single 32 KB request
> at a time, then two requests must go to one drive and be completed
> before the other drive gets any requests, so it remains idle a lot of
> the time.
I think that makes sense (which is a change in this RAID performance
business :( ).
Thanks.
Max.
> Max Waterman wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I've been referred to this list from the linux-raid list.
>>
>> I've been playing with a RAID system, trying to obtain best bandwidth
>> from it.
>>
>> I've noticed that I consistently get better (read) numbers from kernel
>> 2.6.8
>> than from later kernels.
>>
>> For example, I get 135MB/s on 2.6.8, but I typically get ~90MB/s on later
>> kernels.
>>
>> I'm using this :
>>
>> <http://www.sharcnet.ca/~hahn/iorate.c>
>>
>> to measure the iorate. I'm using the debian distribution. The h/w is a
>> MegaRAID
>> 320-2. The array I'm measuring is a RAID0 of 4 Fujitsu Max3073NC
>> 15Krpm drives.
>>
>> The later kernels I've been using are :
>>
>> 2.6.12-1-686-smp
>> 2.6.14-2-686-smp
>> 2.6.15-1-686-smp
>>
>> The kernel which gives us the best results is :
>>
>> 2.6.8-2-386
>>
>> (note that it's not an smp kernel)
>>
>> I'm testing on an otherwise idle system.
>>
>> Any ideas to why this might be? Any other advice/help?
>>
>> Thanks!
>>
>> Max.
>> -
>> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe
>> linux-kernel" in
>> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
>> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
>> Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
>>
>>
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2006-01-18 7:24 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 30+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2006-01-16 7:35 io performance Max Waterman
2006-01-16 7:32 ` Jeff V. Merkey
2006-01-17 13:57 ` Jens Axboe
2006-01-17 19:17 ` Jeff V. Merkey
2006-01-16 8:35 ` Pekka Enberg
2006-01-17 17:06 ` Phillip Susi
2006-01-18 7:24 ` Max Waterman [this message]
2006-01-18 15:19 ` Phillip Susi
2006-01-20 5:58 ` Max Waterman
2006-01-20 13:42 ` Ian Soboroff
2006-01-25 6:36 ` Max Waterman
2006-01-25 14:19 ` Ian Soboroff
2006-01-25 13:09 ` Bernd Eckenfels
2006-01-18 3:02 ` Max Waterman
2006-01-18 4:30 ` Jeff V. Merkey
2006-01-18 5:09 ` Max Waterman
2006-01-18 4:37 ` Jeff V. Merkey
2006-01-18 7:06 ` Max Waterman
2006-01-18 9:21 ` Alan Cox
2006-01-18 15:48 ` Phillip Susi
2006-01-18 16:25 ` Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz
2006-01-19 0:48 ` Adrian Bunk
2006-01-19 13:18 ` Max Waterman
[not found] <5vx8f-1Al-21@gated-at.bofh.it>
[not found] ` <5wbRY-3cF-3@gated-at.bofh.it>
[not found] ` <5wdKh-5wF-15@gated-at.bofh.it>
2006-01-19 1:58 ` Robert Hancock
2006-01-19 13:14 ` Max Waterman
2006-01-19 14:08 ` Alan Cox
2006-01-20 4:09 ` Max Waterman
2006-01-20 4:27 ` Alexander Samad
2006-01-20 12:52 ` Alan Cox
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2006-01-19 11:39 Al Boldi
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=43CDED23.5060701@fastmail.co.uk \
--to=davidmaxwaterman+kernel@fastmail.co.uk \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=psusi@cfl.rr.com \
/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.