From: Patrik Lundquist <patrik.lundquist@gmail.com>
To: Austin S Hemmelgarn <ahferroin7@gmail.com>
Cc: "linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org" <linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: btrfs performance - ssd array
Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2015 16:11:32 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAA7pwKN0-EtPA7Z+2AKSSzOqBOpUGETFFxm-U0umQcAzOkNxYA@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <54B3E03E.80606@gmail.com>
On 12 January 2015 at 15:54, Austin S Hemmelgarn <ahferroin7@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Another thing to consider is that the kernel's default I/O scheduler and the default parameters for that I/O scheduler are almost always suboptimal for SSD's, and this tends to show far more with BTRFS than anything else. Personally I've found that using the CFQ I/O scheduler with the following parameters works best for a majority of SSD's:
> 1. slice_idle=0
> 2. back_seek_penalty=1
> 3. back_seek_max set equal to the size in sectors of the device
> 4. nr_requests and quantum set to the hardware command queue depth
>
> You can easily set these persistently for a given device with a udev rule like this:
> KERNEL=='sda', SUBSYSTEM=='block', ACTION=='add', ATTR{queue/scheduler}='cfq', ATTR{queue/iosched/back_seek_penalty}='1', ATTR{queue/iosched/back_seek_max}='<device_size>', ATTR{queue/iosched/quantum}='128', ATTR{queue/iosched/slice_idle}='0', ATTR{queue/nr_requests}='128'
>
> Make sure to replace '128' in the rule with whatever the command queue depth is for the device in question (It's usually 128 or 256, occasionally more), and <device_size> with the size of the device in kibibytes.
>
So is it "size in sectors of the device" or "size of the device in
kibibytes" for back_seek_max? :-)
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-01-12 15:11 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-01-12 13:51 btrfs performance - ssd array P. Remek
2015-01-12 14:54 ` Austin S Hemmelgarn
2015-01-12 15:11 ` Patrik Lundquist [this message]
2015-01-12 16:32 ` Austin S Hemmelgarn
2015-01-12 15:35 ` P. Remek
2015-01-12 16:43 ` Austin S Hemmelgarn
2015-01-13 3:59 ` Wang Shilong
2015-01-15 13:32 ` P. Remek
2015-01-18 5:11 ` Wang Shilong
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=CAA7pwKN0-EtPA7Z+2AKSSzOqBOpUGETFFxm-U0umQcAzOkNxYA@mail.gmail.com \
--to=patrik.lundquist@gmail.com \
--cc=ahferroin7@gmail.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).