From: Urs Thuermann <urs@isnogud.escape.de>
To: linux-lvm@sistina.com
Subject: Re: [linux-lvm] LVM and *bad* performance (no striping)
Date: 15 May 2001 13:46:15 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <m2n18eygvs.fsf@isnogud.escape.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <200104111949.f3BJnFHt014761@webber.adilger.int>; from Andreas Dilger on Wed, 11 Apr 2001 13:49:14 -0600 (MDT)
Andreas Dilger <adilger@turbolinux.com> writes:
> I'm hoping this patch will make it into the stock LVM because it aligns
> all of the large VGDA structs to PAGE_SIZE (at least 4k pages), and the
> PE alignment matches MD RAID device alignment.
Sorry, I hadn't time to test your patch earlier. I wanted to try it
yesterday but lvm-0.9.1-beta7 with your patch applied doesn't compile.
There are undefined symbols
$ make
...
gcc -L../tools/lib -llvm-10 -o vgchange vgchange.o
vgchange.o: In function `main':
/home/urs/tmp/LVM/0.9.1_beta7-dilger/tools/vgchange.c:635: undefined reference to `LVM_PE_ON_DISK_BASE'
/home/urs/tmp/LVM/0.9.1_beta7-dilger/tools/vgchange.c:638: undefined reference to `LVM_DISK_SIZE'
When I have done my performance tests I had a stock linux-2.4.3 and
user space tools from lvm-0.9 running. I now repeated the tests with
lvm-0.9.1-beta7, both user space tools and kernel (recreated all PVs,
VGs and LVs). However, the results with these versions are the same.
I also did some tests with another hard disk drive. My previous tests
were with a IBM DCAS-34330W SCSI-U2W. I now did some tests with a NEC
DSE2100S SCSI2 drive. Again, LVM is much slower with the standard
512 byte block size:
# pvcreate /dev/sdc4
pvcreate -- physical volume "/dev/sdc4" successfully created
# vgcreate vg1 /dev/sdc4
vgcreate -- INFO: using default physical extent size 4 MB
vgcreate -- INFO: maximum logical volume size is 255.99 Gigabyte
vgcreate -- doing automatic backup of volume group "vg1"
vgcreate -- volume group "vg1" successfully created and activated
# lvcreate -n test vg1 -l31
lvcreate -- doing automatic backup of "vg1"
lvcreate -- logical volume "/dev/vg1/test" successfully created
# time dd if=/dev/sdc4 of=/dev/null
257040+0 records in
257040+0 records out
real 0m37.205s
user 0m0.840s
sys 0m3.780s
# time dd if=/dev/vg1/test of=/dev/null
253952+0 records in
253952+0 records out
real 2m52.368s
user 0m1.330s
sys 0m12.390s
# time dd if=/dev/vg1/test of=/dev/null bs=8k
15872+0 records in
15872+0 records out
real 0m43.501s
user 0m0.050s
sys 0m4.600s
# time dd if=/dev/vg1/test of=/dev/null bs=16k
7936+0 records in
7936+0 records out
real 0m40.806s
user 0m0.070s
sys 0m4.290s
# time dd if=/dev/vg1/test of=/dev/null bs=32k
3968+0 records in
3968+0 records out
real 0m38.777s
user 0m0.030s
sys 0m4.290s
What I find surprising is that the system time increases to 12.390s
with LVM compared to 3.780s on /dev/sdc4. That is approx. 34ms of
overhead per 512-block which I find a lot for the simple mapping of
block numbers. But this still does not explain the much longer real
elapsed time.
Is there another patch (maybe to produce some debugging output) I
could try to find the reason for this performnace hit?
And am I really the only one who sees this? I would really be
interested to hear from some more people about performance for their
LVM.
urs
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2001-05-15 11:46 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 22+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2001-02-26 15:44 [linux-lvm] LVM and *bad* performance (no striping) Urs Thuermann
2001-02-26 20:39 ` Joe Thornber
2001-02-26 21:03 ` Jorg de Jong
2001-02-26 21:38 ` Rik van Riel
2001-02-27 8:35 ` Patrick Caulfield
2001-02-27 12:21 ` Urs Thuermann
2001-02-28 11:05 ` Heinz J. Mauelshagen
2001-04-10 19:30 ` Urs Thuermann
2001-04-10 21:37 ` Andreas Dilger
2001-04-11 11:23 ` Urs Thuermann
2001-04-11 19:49 ` Andreas Dilger
2001-04-11 22:00 ` Terje Kvernes
2001-05-15 11:46 ` Urs Thuermann [this message]
2001-05-15 12:13 ` Patrick Caulfield
2001-05-26 11:17 ` Urs Thuermann
2001-05-27 7:47 ` Andreas Dilger
2001-05-27 9:47 ` Urs Thuermann
2001-05-27 17:01 ` [linux-lvm] LVM and *bad* performance (counterexample) idsfa
2001-05-15 17:08 ` [linux-lvm] LVM and *bad* performance (no striping) Andreas Dilger
2001-05-26 11:23 ` Urs Thuermann
2001-02-26 21:41 ` Rik van Riel
2001-02-27 10:33 ` Urs Thuermann
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=m2n18eygvs.fsf@isnogud.escape.de \
--to=urs@isnogud.escape.de \
--cc=linux-lvm@sistina.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.