All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Jens Axboe <jaxboe@fusionio.com>
To: Bike & Snow <bikeandsnow@googlemail.com>
Cc: fio@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: FIO is CPU bound on small block sizes
Date: Tue, 8 Feb 2011 13:59:46 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <4D513E42.2030508@fusionio.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTimVOrLR+MJDhg5Q=vfLvNKbfP4H6i3iJNjxPgpe@mail.gmail.com>

On 2011-02-08 11:30, Bike & Snow wrote:
> Hello
> 
> I am trying to measure IOPs on a RAID system using FIO.
> 
> I've been using FIO for a while and I'm pretty familiar with it.
> 
> However, I have found for small blocksizes, the benchmark is CPU bound
> as it only works on a single CPU core.
> 
> Here's what I mean. All these are sequential read results.
> 
> Iometer results:
> 512B	181,317
> 1K		166,232
> 2K		133,753
> 4K		109,498
> 8K		 78,276
> 16K		 51,638
> 
> FIO results:
> 512B	 97,494
> 1K		100,034
> 2K		 98,615
> 4K		 93,859
> 8K		 83,064
> 16K		 69,623
> 
> I can see when observing the output from "top" that the "fio" thread
> is at 99% for the smaller block sizes.
> So it appears to be CPU bound for small block sizes - 512B to 4K.
> From 8K onwards FIO is actually faster than Iometer.
> 
> Software:
> Linux 2.6.36.3
> FIO 1.50
> Iometer 1.1.0
> 
> Hardware:
> Intel Xeon X3450 @ 2.67GHz
> Hardware RAID6 array
> 
> FIO command used:
> fio -name iops -rw=read -bs=512 -runtime=180 -iodepth 4 -filename
> /dev/storage/iometer -ioengine libaio -direct=1
> 
> As you can see I'm testing the block device directly without using a
> file system.
> 
> I have tried different iodepth values but it makes no difference.
> 
> Any ideas on how I can measure the IOPs of the RAID device when using
> small block sizes?

Are you sure you are comparing the same IO pattern? One way to reduce
the fio overhead is to reduce the time keepnig that it does, in case
that isn't of interest here. Add --gtod_reduce=1 for that. Submit and
complete more in one batch, add --iodepth_batch_submit=2
--iodepth_batch_complete=2 for that for instance.

-- 
Jens Axboe


  reply	other threads:[~2011-02-08 12:58 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2011-02-08 10:30 FIO is CPU bound on small block sizes Bike & Snow
2011-02-08 12:59 ` Jens Axboe [this message]
2011-02-08 14:02 ` Chris Worley
2011-02-09 15:24   ` Bike & Snow

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=4D513E42.2030508@fusionio.com \
    --to=jaxboe@fusionio.com \
    --cc=bikeandsnow@googlemail.com \
    --cc=fio@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.