From: Andreas Hirstius <Andreas.Hirstius@cern.ch>
To: linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [Gelato-technical] Serious performance degradation on a RAID
Date: Wed, 06 Apr 2005 07:30:37 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4253901D.8030002@cern.ch> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <16978.62532.841151.100745@napali.hpl.hp.com>
Rob Fowler wrote:
> I've recently had discussions with several vendors who have mentioned
> similar magnitudes of disk performance degradation due to the
> coupling of vibration between cooling fans and disks. This can
> dramatically increase seek time by keeping the arm from settling.
> In one case, upgrading a chassis fan caused disk throughput to go down
> by a factor of 16. The solution is careful attention to vibration
> damping in mountings. Vibration caused by fan bearing wear could have
> a similar effect.
>
We've also seen similiar problems before... So I made sure it's not
something "mechanical" ;-)
> Can you go back to your old kernel to verify that it is still
> giving you the same performance?
>
I'm constantly going back and forth between "working" and "not working"
kernels.
The performance with a given kernel doesn't change...
Andreas
> -- Rob Fowler
>
>
> David Mosberger wrote:
>
>>>>>>> On Tue, 05 Apr 2005 20:11:51 +0200, Andreas Hirstius
>>>>>>> <Andreas.Hirstius@cern.ch> said:
>>>>>>
>>
>>
>> Andreas> Hi, We have a rx4640 with 3x 3Ware 9500 SATA controllers
>> Andreas> and 24x WD740GD HDD in a software RAID0 configuration
>> Andreas> (using md). With kernel 2.6.11 the read performance on the
>> Andreas> md is reduced by a factor of 20 (!!) compared to previous
>> Andreas> kernels. The write rate to the md doesn't change!! (it
>> Andreas> actually improves a bit).
>>
>> Is there any reason to believe this change in behavior is
>> ia64-specific? I doubt it. The q-syscollect profiles on your
>> web-site shows that the CPU is basically completely idle. You may
>> want to try 2.6.10 to see whether the bad behavior was introduced
>> before or after that. Unfortunately, 2.6 is developing very rapidly
>> so you may have to do more binary searching between 2.6.9 and 2.6.10
>> or 2.6.10 and 2.6.11 to pin the problem down to a useful granularity.
>> You may also want to look at the bitkeeper changelogs to see if you
>> can find anything suspicious (you can do that easily via the web by
>> browsing the source code [1]). Lastly, you may want to ask on
>> linux-kernel whether anybody can think of a change that could have
>> this effect.
>>
>> --david
>>
>> [1] http://linux.bkbits.net:8080/linux-2.5/src?nav=index.html
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Gelato-technical mailing list
>> Gelato-technical@gelato.unsw.edu.au
>> https://www.gelato.unsw.edu.au/mailman/listinfo/gelato-technical
>
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2005-04-06 7:30 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 15+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2005-04-05 20:25 [Gelato-technical] Serious performance degradation on a RAID with David Mosberger
2005-04-05 20:43 ` [Gelato-technical] Serious performance degradation on a RAID Rob Fowler
2005-04-06 2:13 ` [Gelato-technical] Serious performance degradation on a RAID with kernel 2.6.11 Duraid Madina
2005-04-06 4:45 ` [Gelato-technical] Serious performance degradation on a RAID with David Mosberger
2005-04-06 4:53 ` [Gelato-technical] Serious performance degradation on a RAID with kernel 2.6.11 Duraid Madina
2005-04-06 5:10 ` David Mosberger
2005-04-06 5:56 ` [Gelato-technical] Serious performance degradation on a RAID withkernel 2.6.11 Chen, Kenneth W
2005-04-06 7:29 ` [Gelato-technical] Serious performance degradation on a RAID Andreas Hirstius
2005-04-06 7:30 ` Andreas Hirstius [this message]
2005-04-06 7:32 ` David Mosberger
2005-04-06 7:34 ` Andreas Hirstius
2005-04-06 8:33 ` Andreas Hirstius
2005-04-06 16:58 ` David Mosberger
2005-04-06 18:57 ` Andreas Hirstius
2005-04-06 21:50 ` [Gelato-technical] Serious performance degradation on a RAID withkernel 2.6.11 Chen, Kenneth W
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=4253901D.8030002@cern.ch \
--to=andreas.hirstius@cern.ch \
--cc=linux-ia64@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