From: Peter Kieser <peter@kieser.ca>
To: Matthias Ferdinand <bcache@mfedv.net>, linux-bcache@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: bad bcache performance - crappy SSD?
Date: Tue, 27 May 2014 13:13:30 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <5384F1EA.2070402@kieser.ca> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20140526221649.GI10209@teapot>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3083 bytes --]
What filesystem are you running on top of bcache? There are issues with
XFS and barrier modes causing 100% util on the cache device.
-Peter
On 2014-05-26 3:16 PM, Matthias Ferdinand wrote:
> Hi,
>
> so far I have been unable to get an actual performance improvement out
> of bcache, and I suspect that my SSD is just crap. Any help or hint
> appreciated. What (SATA) SSDs have you been using successfully with
> bcache?
>
>
> My host system: Ubuntu 14.04 x64.
> kernels tried: Ubuntu stock (3.13.0-24), 3.14, 3.15-rc{5,6}.
>
> storage structure:
> 3xSATA (sda,sdb,sdc) => md raid5 (md125) => bcache0 => LVM (dm-1)
>
> benchmark: install linux kernel header package inside kvm guest
>
> cache device not attached: 0:18 minutes
> SSD cache device attached (writethrough): 3:27 minutes
> SSD cache device attached (writeback): 3:25 minutes
>
> With attached cache device, the ssd seems very busy (iostat %util),
> while the raid members are not:
>
> Device: rrqm/s wrqm/s r/s w/s rkB/s wkB/s avgrq-sz avgqu-sz await r_await w_await svctm %util
> (5) sdc 0.00 12.33 0.00 57.33 0.00 57.00 1.99 0.06 1.07 0.00 1.07 0.79 4.53
> (5) sdb 0.33 12.00 0.33 57.00 2.67 54.33 1.99 0.07 1.19 0.00 1.19 0.84 4.80
> (5) sda 0.00 11.33 0.00 57.00 0.00 51.67 1.81 0.06 1.10 0.00 1.10 0.80 4.53
> (*) sdf 0.00 0.00 0.00 54.67 0.00 27.17 0.99 0.98 18.05 0.00 18.05 17.95 98.13
>
> (5) raid 5 member; (*) SSD
>
>
> when I replace the SSD with a single SATA disk:
> SATA cache device attached (writethrough): 0:19 minutes
> SATA cache device attached (writeback): 0:13 minutes
>
>
> The SSD is an Intel 530, has current firmware and plenty of DISCARDed
> blocks. Specs claim >= 13.000 incompressible writes/sec for the 120GB
> model, but the above data suggests it can handle just about 60.
>
>
> === START OF INFORMATION SECTION ===
> Device Model: INTEL SSDSC2BW120A4
> Serial Number: CVDA3393028N1207GN
> LU WWN Device Id: 5 5cd2e4 04b82aa5a
> Firmware Version: DC32
> User Capacity: 120,034,123,776 bytes [120 GB]
> Sector Size: 512 bytes logical/physical
> Rotation Rate: Solid State Device
> Device is: Not in smartctl database [for details use: -P showall]
> ATA Version is: ACS-2 (minor revision not indicated)
> SATA Version is: SATA 3.0, 6.0 Gb/s (current: 3.0 Gb/s)
> Local Time is: Sat May 24 20:37:14 2014 CEST
> SMART support is: Available - device has SMART capability.
> SMART support is: Enabled
>
>
>
> Regards
> Matthias
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-bcache" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
[-- Attachment #2: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature --]
[-- Type: application/pkcs7-signature, Size: 4504 bytes --]
prev parent reply other threads:[~2014-05-27 20:12 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 2+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2014-05-26 22:16 bad bcache performance - crappy SSD? Matthias Ferdinand
2014-05-27 20:13 ` Peter Kieser [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=5384F1EA.2070402@kieser.ca \
--to=peter@kieser.ca \
--cc=bcache@mfedv.net \
--cc=linux-bcache@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.