From: Michal Rostecki <mrostecki@suse.de>
To: Anand Jain <anand.jain@oracle.com>
Cc: dsterba@suse.cz, linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org, dsterba@suse.com,
josef@toxicpanda.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 1/3] btrfs: add read_policy latency
Date: Tue, 9 Feb 2021 21:12:00 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20210209211200.GA1662@wotan.suse.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <34cecc3d-235e-2f47-0992-675dc576b5be@oracle.com>
On Thu, Feb 04, 2021 at 08:30:01PM +0800, Anand Jain wrote:
>
> Hi Michal,
>
> Did you get any chance to run the evaluation with this patchset?
>
> Thanks, Anand
>
Hi Anand,
Yes, I tested your policies now. Sorry for late response.
For the singlethreaded test:
[global]
name=btrfs-raid1-seqread
filename=btrfs-raid1-seqread
rw=read
bs=64k
direct=0
numjobs=1
time_based=0
[file1]
size=10G
ioengine=libaio
results are:
- raid1c3 with 3 HDDs:
3 x Segate Barracuda ST2000DM008 (2TB)
* pid policy
READ: bw=215MiB/s (226MB/s), 215MiB/s-215MiB/s (226MB/s-226MB/s),
io=10.0GiB (10.7GB), run=47537-47537msec
* latency policy
READ: bw=219MiB/s (229MB/s), 219MiB/s-219MiB/s (229MB/s-229MB/s),
io=10.0GiB (10.7GB), run=46852-46852msec
* device policy - didn't test it here, I guess it doesn't make sense
to check it on non-mixed arrays ;)
- raid1c3 with 2 HDDs and 1 SSD:
2 x Segate Barracuda ST2000DM008 (2TB)
1 x Crucial CT256M550SSD1 (256GB)
* pid policy
READ: bw=219MiB/s (230MB/s), 219MiB/s-219MiB/s (230MB/s-230MB/s),
io=10.0GiB (10.7GB), run=46749-46749msec
* latency policy
READ: bw=517MiB/s (542MB/s), 517MiB/s-517MiB/s (542MB/s-542MB/s),
io=10.0GiB (10.7GB), run=19823-19823msec
* device policy
READ: bw=517MiB/s (542MB/s), 517MiB/s-517MiB/s (542MB/s-542MB/s),
io=10.0GiB (10.7GB), run=19810-19810msec
For the multithreaded test:
[global]
name=btrfs-raid1-seqread
filename=btrfs-raid1-seqread
rw=read
bs=64k
direct=0
numjobs=1
time_based=0
[file1]
size=10G
ioengine=libaio
results are:
- raid1c3 with 3 HDDs:
3 x Segate Barracuda ST2000DM008 (2TB)
* pid policy
READ: bw=1608MiB/s (1686MB/s), 201MiB/s-201MiB/s (211MB/s-211MB/s),
io=80.0GiB (85.9GB), run=50948-50949msec
* latency policy
READ: bw=1515MiB/s (1588MB/s), 189MiB/s-189MiB/s (199MB/s-199MB/s),
io=80.0GiB (85.9GB), run=54081-54084msec
- raid1c3 with 2 HDDs and 1 SSD:
2 x Segate Barracuda ST2000DM008 (2TB)
1 x Crucial CT256M550SSD1 (256GB)
* pid policy
READ: bw=1843MiB/s (1932MB/s), 230MiB/s-230MiB/s (242MB/s-242MB/s),
io=80.0GiB (85.9GB), run=44449-44450msec
* latency policy
READ: bw=4213MiB/s (4417MB/s), 527MiB/s-527MiB/s (552MB/s-552MB/s),
io=80.0GiB (85.9GB), run=19444-19446msec
* device policy
READ: bw=4196MiB/s (4400MB/s), 525MiB/s-525MiB/s (550MB/s-550MB/s),
io=80.0GiB (85.9GB), run=19522-19522msec
To sum it up - I think that your policies are indeed a very good match
for mixed (nonrot and rot) arrays.
They perform either slightly better or worse (depending on the test)
than pid policy on all-HDD arrays.
I've just sent out my proposal of roundrobin policy, which seems to give
better performance for all-HDD than your policies (and better than pid
policy in all cases):
https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/linux-btrfs/patch/20210209203041.21493-7-mrostecki@suse.de/
Cheers,
Michal
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-02-09 21:31 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 15+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-01-20 7:52 [PATCH v4 0/3] btrfs: read_policy types latency, device and round-robin Anand Jain
2021-01-20 7:52 ` [PATCH v4 1/3] btrfs: add read_policy latency Anand Jain
2021-01-20 12:14 ` David Sterba
2021-01-21 10:10 ` Anand Jain
2021-01-21 17:52 ` David Sterba
2021-01-22 8:10 ` Anand Jain
2021-01-30 1:08 ` Anand Jain
2021-02-04 12:30 ` Anand Jain
2021-02-09 21:12 ` Michal Rostecki [this message]
2021-02-10 6:14 ` Anand Jain
2021-01-20 7:52 ` [PATCH v4 2/3] btrfs: introduce new device-state read_preferred Anand Jain
2021-01-21 10:19 ` Anand Jain
2021-01-20 7:52 ` [PATCH v4 3/3] btrfs: introduce new read_policy device Anand Jain
2021-01-20 12:34 ` [PATCH v4 0/3, full-cover-letter] btrfs: read_policy types latency, device and round-robin Anand Jain
2021-01-22 5:52 ` Anand Jain
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=20210209211200.GA1662@wotan.suse.de \
--to=mrostecki@suse.de \
--cc=anand.jain@oracle.com \
--cc=dsterba@suse.com \
--cc=dsterba@suse.cz \
--cc=josef@toxicpanda.com \
--cc=linux-btrfs@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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).