From: Anand Jain <anand.jain@oracle.com>
To: 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: Sat, 30 Jan 2021 09:08:40 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <9f406301-c16a-72a5-4ff3-d3bda127895e@oracle.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <28b7ef3d-b5b9-f4a6-8d6f-1e6fc1103815@oracle.com>
>> 500m is really small data size for such measurement
I reran the read policy tests with some changes in the fio command
options. Mainly to measure IOPS throughput and latency on the filesystem
with latency-policy and pid-policy.
Each of these tests was run for 3 iterations and the best and worst of
those 3 iterations are shown below.
These workloads are performing read-write which is the most commonly
used workload, on a single type of device (which is nvme here) and two
devices are configured for RAID1.
In all these read-write workloads, pid-policy performed ~25% better than
the latency-policy for both throughput and IOPS, and 3% better on the
latency parameter.
I haven't analyzed these read-write workloads on RAID1c3/RAID1c4 yet,
but RAID1 is more common than other types, IMO.
So I think pid-policy should remain as our default read policy.
However as shown before, pid-policy perform worst in the case of special
configs such as volumes with mixed types of devices. For those special
mixed types of devices, latency-policy performs better than pid-policy.
As tested before typically latency-policy provided ~175% better
throughput performance in the case of mixed types of devices (SSD and
nvme).
Feedbacks welcome.
Fio logs below.
IOPS focused readwrite workload:
fio --filename=/btrfs/foo --size=500GB --direct=1 --rw=randrw --bs=4k
--ioengine=libaio --iodepth=256 --runtime=120 --numjobs=4 --time_based
--group_reporting --name=iops-randomreadwrite --eta-newline=1
pid [latency] device roundrobin ( 00)
read: IOPS=40.6k, BW=159MiB/s (166MB/s)(18.6GiB/120002msec)
[pid] latency device roundrobin ( 00)
read: IOPS=50.7k, BW=198MiB/s (208MB/s)(23.2GiB/120001msec)
IOPS is 25% better with pid policy.
Throughput focused readwrite workload:
fio --filename=/btrfs/foo --size=500GB --direct=1 --rw=randrw --bs=64k
--ioengine=libaio --iodepth=64 --runtime=120 --numjobs=4 --time_based
--group_reporting --name=throughput-randomreadwrite --eta-newline=1
pid [latency] device roundrobin ( 00)
read: IOPS=8525, BW=533MiB/s (559MB/s)(62.4GiB/120003msec)
[pid] latency device roundrobin ( 00)
read: IOPS=10.7k, BW=670MiB/s (702MB/s)(78.5GiB/120005msec)
Throughput is 25% better with pid policy
Latency focused readwrite workload:
fio --filename=/btrfs/foo --size=500GB --direct=1 --rw=randrw --bs=4k
--ioengine=libaio --iodepth=1 --runtime=120 --numjobs=4 --time_based
--group_reporting --name=latency-randomreadwrite --eta-newline=1
pid [latency] device roundrobin ( 00)
read: IOPS=59.8k, BW=234MiB/s (245MB/s)(27.4GiB/120003msec)
lat (usec): min=68, max=826930, avg=1917.20, stdev=4210.90
[pid] latency device roundrobin ( 00)
read: IOPS=61.9k, BW=242MiB/s (253MB/s)(28.3GiB/120001msec)
lat (usec): min=64, max=751557, avg=1846.07, stdev=4082.97
Latency is 3% better with pid policy.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-01-30 1:14 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 [this message]
2021-02-04 12:30 ` Anand Jain
2021-02-09 21:12 ` Michal Rostecki
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=9f406301-c16a-72a5-4ff3-d3bda127895e@oracle.com \
--to=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).