From: Zdenek Kabelac <zkabelac@redhat.com>
To: device-mapper development <dm-devel@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: Poor snapshot performance in linux-3.19
Date: Thu, 28 May 2015 12:45:09 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <5566F1B5.9060707@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAKTMprNqkA2dvG3sQRKqWAttaLzicE7C4s6pftbnrqSg+0EJcw@mail.gmail.com>
Dne 28.5.2015 v 12:18 Dennis Yang napsal(a):
> Hi,
>
> I have a workstation which runs Fedora 21 with linux-3.19 kernel and
> create a thin pool onto of a RAID0 (chunksize = 512KB) with five
> Crucial 256GB SSDs.
> [root@localhost ~]# dmsetup create pool --table "0 2478300160
> thin-pool /dev/md0p1 /dev/md0p2 1024 0 1 skip_block_zeroing"
>
> Then, I create a small thin volume with the following commands.
> [root@localhost ~]# dmsetup message pool 0 "create_thin 0"
> [root@localhost ~]# dmsetup create thin --table "0 400000000 thin
> /dev/mapper/pool 0"
>
> After that, I use both dd and fio for throughput testing and get the
> following result.
> [root@localhost ~]# dd if=/dev/zero of=/dev/mapper/thin bs=2M count=25k
> 25600+0 records in
> 25600+0 records out
> 53687091200 bytes (54 GB) copied, 29.0871 s, 1.8 GB/s
>
> The 1.8 GB/s throughput looks pretty reasonable to me. However, after
> taking a single snapshot of this thin device, I get a pretty low
> throughput with the same command.
> [root@localhost ~]# dd if=/dev/zero of=/dev/mapper/thin bs=2M count=25k
> 25600+0 records in
> 25600+0 records out
> 53687091200 bytes (54 GB) copied, 191.495 s, 280 MB/s
>
> I am aware of that writing to a snapshotted device will trigger lots
> of copy-on-write requests, so I was expecting a 50~60% performance
> loss in this case. However, 85% performance loss can be observed in my
> test above. Am I doing anything wrong or is there anything I can tune
> to make this right? If someone can point direction for me, I am glad
> to test or even modify the source code to solve this case.
Hi
Using 0.5MB chunks and expecting fast snapshots is not going to work.
Have you measured speed with smaller chunks - i.e. 64k/128k ?
Zdenek
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-05-28 10:45 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-05-28 10:18 Poor snapshot performance in linux-3.19 Dennis Yang
2015-05-28 10:45 ` Zdenek Kabelac [this message]
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2015-05-29 3:03 Dennis Yang
2015-05-29 15:29 ` Joe Thornber
2015-06-01 10:39 Dennis Yang
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=5566F1B5.9060707@redhat.com \
--to=zkabelac@redhat.com \
--cc=dm-devel@redhat.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.