Flexible I/O Tester development
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Michael Green <mishagreen@gmail.com>
To: Jeff Furlong <jeff.furlong@wdc.com>,
	"fio@vger.kernel.org" <fio@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: random_generator=lfsr overhead with more disks?
Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2018 17:16:56 -0400	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <EB5DCCCC-6FFC-4FE5-93FF-4701520AB78A@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <BN3PR0401MB145797FEFD095957854800088FD70@BN3PR0401MB1457.namprd04.prod.outlook.com>

> -How does the cpu utilization look compared between the lfsr and default tausworthe generators?  Is the cpu util actually higher on lfsr?  

It is actually less when using LFSR with 16 volumes:

Without LFSR (CPU utilization is 5th column):
[root@sm28 ~]# ps -eLo ppid,pid,pri,psr,pcpu,stat,wchan:14,comm | grep fio
 PPID   PID PRI PSR %CPU STAT WCHAN          COMMAND
 2239 24684  19   0  0.7 Sl+  hrtimer_nanosl fio
 2239 24684  19   0  0.2 Sl+  futex_wait_que fio
 2239 24684  19   3 60.4 Rl+  -              fio
 2239 24684  19   6 60.5 Sl+  -              fio
 2239 24684  19   1 61.2 Rl+  -              fio
 2239 24684  19  23 62.5 Sl+  -              fio
 2239 24684  19   7 60.6 Rl+  -              fio
 2239 24684  19  18 61.0 Rl+  -              fio
 2239 24684  19  16 61.0 Rl+  -              fio
 2239 24684  19   4 62.0 Rl+  -              fio

With LFSR:
[root@sm28 ~]# ps -eLo ppid,pid,pri,psr,pcpu,stat,wchan:14,comm | grep fio
 2239 25589  19  20  2.7 Sl+  hrtimer_nanosl fio
 2239 25589  19  25  0.3 Sl+  futex_wait_que fio
 2239 25589  19  16 80.1 Rl+  -              fio
 2239 25589  19  22 78.0 Rl+  -              fio
 2239 25589  19   5 82.6 Rl+  -              fio
 2239 25589  19   4 78.0 Rl+  -              fio
 2239 25589  19  18 82.7 Rl+  -              fio
 2239 25589  19  17 80.7 Sl+  14051005663345 fio
 2239 25589  19  23 76.6 Sl+  -              fio
 2239 25589  19   0 77.6 Rl+  -              fio


But almost the same with 1 volume:

Without LFSR
[root@sm28 ~]# ps -eLo ppid,pid,pri,psr,pcpu,stat,wchan:14,comm | grep fio
 2239 27559  19   7  4.0 Sl+  hrtimer_nanosl fio
 2239 27559  19   2  0.0 Sl+  futex_wait_que fio
 2239 27559  19  18 79.4 Rl+  -              fio
 2239 27559  19  17 79.0 Rl+  -              fio
 2239 27559  19   6 78.6 Rl+  -              fio
 2239 27559  19   5 77.6 Rl+  -              fio
 2239 27559  19  23 82.6 Rl+  -              fio
 2239 27559  19   3 77.4 Rl+  -              fio
 2239 27559  19   4 77.1 Sl+  -              fio
 2239 27559  19  16 75.9 Rl+  -              fio

With LFSR:
[root@sm28 ~]# ps -eLo ppid,pid,pri,psr,pcpu,stat,wchan:14,comm | grep fio
 2239 27174  19  20  2.0 Sl+  hrtimer_nanosl fio
 2239 27174  19  25  0.0 Sl+  futex_wait_que fio
 2239 27174  19  16 80.0 Rl+  -              fio
 2239 27174  19   6 78.4 Rl+  -              fio
 2239 27174  19   3 77.5 Rl+  -              fio
 2239 27174  19   5 76.4 Sl+  -              fio
 2239 27174  19  19 77.1 Rl+  -              fio
 2239 27174  19   4 76.4 Rl+  -              fio
 2239 27174  19   7 77.0 Rl+  -              fio
 2239 27174  19   1 75.8 Rl+  -              fio



> -Does a runtime of 2 minutes collect enough data points to assess the condition?  What happens if you extend the runtime?

Yes, it does. Shortening the test to 20 sec or extending to 10 min, doesn’t change a thing.



  reply	other threads:[~2018-03-16 21:17 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2018-03-13 19:23 random_generator=lfsr overhead with more disks? Michael Green
2018-03-16 18:45 ` Jeff Furlong
2018-03-16 21:16   ` Michael Green [this message]
2018-03-16 21:16   ` Michael Green
     [not found]     ` <BN3PR0401MB145715070B7B9F0C71A902318FD70@BN3PR0401MB1457.namprd04.prod.outlook.com>
     [not found]       ` <902A0A2A-8708-4A94-A09E-5D3C9BFB48FF@gmail.com>
     [not found]         ` <SN6PR04MB4064D865EBEB79DE2219218D8FD70@SN6PR04MB4064.namprd04.prod.outlook.com>
2018-03-16 22:32           ` Michael Green
2018-03-17  5:42             ` Sitsofe Wheeler
2018-03-29  7:24               ` Michael Green
2018-03-29  8:56                 ` Sitsofe Wheeler
2018-03-21 14:34   ` Jens Axboe
2018-03-29  7:28     ` Michael Green
2018-03-29  8:50       ` Sitsofe Wheeler

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=EB5DCCCC-6FFC-4FE5-93FF-4701520AB78A@gmail.com \
    --to=mishagreen@gmail.com \
    --cc=fio@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=jeff.furlong@wdc.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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox