From: Linda Walsh <xfs@tlinx.org>
To: Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com>
Cc: xfs-oss <xfs@oss.sgi.com>
Subject: Re: better perf and memory uage for xfs_fsr? Trivial patch against xfstools-3.16 included...
Date: Thu, 08 Nov 2012 23:10:26 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <509CAC62.3040508@tlinx.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20121108213911.GS6434@dastard>
Dave Chinner wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 08, 2012 at 12:30:11PM -0800, Linda Walsh wrote:
>> FWIW, the benefit, probably comes from the read-file, as the written file
>> is written with DIRECT I/O and I can't see that it should make a difference
>> there.
>
> Hmmm, so it does. I think that's probably the bug that needs to be
> fixed, not so much using posix_fadvise....
---
Well... using direct I/O might be another way of fixing it...
but I notice that neither the reads nor the writes seem to use the optimal
I/O size that takes into consideration RAID alignment. It aligns for memory
alignment and aligns for a 2-4k device alignment, but doesn't seem to take
into consideration minor things like a 64k strip-unit x 12-wide-data-width
(768k).. if you do direct I/O. might want to be sure to RAID align it...
Doing <64k at a time would cause heinous perf... while using
the SEQUENTIAL+READ-ONCE params seem to cause a notable I/O smoothing
(no dips/valleys on the I/O charts), though I don't know how much
(if any) real performance increase (or decrease) there was, as setting
up exactly fragmentation cases would be a pain...
If you do LARGE I/O's on the READs.. say 256MB at a time, I
don't think exact alignment will matter that much, but I notice speed
improvements up to a 1GB buffer size in reads + writes in 'dd' using
direct I/O (couldn't test larger size, as device driver doesn't seem
to allow anything > 2GB-8k.. (this on a 64bit machine)
at least I think it is the dev.driver, hasn't been important enough
to chase down.
While such large buffers might be bad on a memory tight
machine, on many 64-bit machines, it's well worth the throughput
and lower disk-transfer-time usage. Meanwhile, that posix
call added on the read side really does seem to benefit...
Try it, you'll like it! ;-) (not to say it is the 'best' fix,
but it's pretty low cost!)...
> Cheers,
>
> Dave.
_______________________________________________
xfs mailing list
xfs@oss.sgi.com
http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2012-11-09 7:08 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2012-11-08 12:51 better perf and memory uage for xfs_fsr? Trivial patch against xfstools-3.16 included Linda Walsh
2012-11-08 20:30 ` Linda Walsh
2012-11-08 21:39 ` Dave Chinner
2012-11-09 7:10 ` Linda Walsh [this message]
2012-11-09 8:16 ` Dave Chinner
2012-11-08 21:29 ` Dave 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=509CAC62.3040508@tlinx.org \
--to=xfs@tlinx.org \
--cc=david@fromorbit.com \
--cc=xfs@oss.sgi.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.