From: Austin Gonyou <austin@coremetrics.com>
To: linux-lvm@sistina.com
Subject: Re: [linux-lvm] LVM causing IO contention or slowdown?
Date: Sat Jan 19 01:33:01 2002 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1011425563.3118.29.camel@UberGeek> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1011414567.2241.29.camel@UberGeek>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 4502 bytes --]
As a follow up to this I've done some more testing, and will test the
rest of this weekend, using AIM db benchmark.
What I've found is that when mounting with logbufs=8 on my Quad Xeon 2MB
cache 6450 with 8 Ultra-2 Drives, 4 RAID0 volumes, two of 3 disks each
and two of 1 disk each.
The larger Volumes, the more "costly" volumes, when mounted using
logbufs=8, outperformed the same volume addressed when not under LVM
control. Not only did it out perform itself, but either WITH or WITHOUT
LVM controlling the volume, I nearly doubled my throughput to those
drives.
Here is what I'm talking about:
#With LVM management
Throughput 109.715 MB/sec (NB=137.144 MB/sec 1097.15 MBit/sec) 200
procs
#Without LVM management
Throughput 100.803 MB/sec (NB=126.004 MB/sec 1008.03 MBit/sec) 200
procs
This only happened once though and I'm not sure exactly why. Still, the
max I could get out of it for the same test more than once with LVM
enabled was around 80-85 MB/s. Still a HUGE improvement over 43/44 MB/s.
On Fri, 2002-01-18 at 22:29, Austin Gonyou wrote:
> Some disturbing things about LVM I've found. I'm not sure if this has
> anything to do with XFS or not, I'm still working on that part.
>
> Anyway, I've got an AMI MegaRAID 1600(or so, Dell PERC2/DC, and a Dell
> PERC3/DC[also ami/lsi]). I conducted a test with dbench in the following
> manner:
>
>
> 1. create a 3 drive RAID0 on the PERC.
> 2. mkfs.xfs the new "drive" as the OS sees it. (/dev/sdxx)
> 3. mount /dev/sdxx /mnt/test
> 4. chown austin:austin /mnt/test
> <login as austin>
> 5. cd /mnt/test
> 6. cp ~/dbench/client.txt .
> 7. dbench 200 (ended up at 29MB/s)
> 8. dbench 150 (ended up at 31MB/s)
> <login as root>
> 9. umount /mnt/test
> 10. fdisk /dev/sdxx
> 11. 'T' for partition type
> 12. '1' for partition #
> 13. '8e' for LVM and 'w' to save partition config.
> 14. pvcreate /dev/sdxx;vgcreate -Ay testvg /dev/sdxx
> 15. lvcreate -Cy -L 109G -n testlv testvg
> 16. mkxfs.xfs /dev/testvg/testlv
> 17. mount /dev/testvg/testlv /mnt/test
> 18. chown austin:austin /mnt/test
> <login as austin>
> 19. cp ~/dbench/client.txt .
> 20. dbench 200 (ended up at 54MB/s)
> 21. dbench 150 (ended up at 61MB/s)
>
> The disk which was made into a pv you see up there is /dev/sdxx. That
> means it was a partition. I also set it to be contiguous. This could be
> very bad for the dbench kind of test. I'm not sure. Next I did something
> similar to the above, but I removed all partitions from the physical
> device and recreated the volume using just /dev/sdx. That said, I
> retested just now and got the following:
>
> o Throughput 49.733 MB/sec (NB=62.1662 MB/sec 497.33 MBit/sec) 200
> procs
> o Throughput 43.5752 MB/sec (NB=54.469 MB/sec 435.752 MBit/sec) 150
> procs (not sure about why this is)
>
> and then on a whim...
>
> o Throughput 37.4975 MB/sec (NB=46.8719 MB/sec 374.975 MBit/sec) 250
> procs
> and again...
> o Throughput 43.4332 MB/sec (NB=54.2916 MB/sec 434.332 MBit/sec) 150
> procs
>
> Either way, these results are a far cry from what was shown above using
> Contiguous on a partition, instead of a whole disk. If there's a way to
> improve this, Please advise.
>
> And then I removed the volume from LVM control, and tested again:
>
> o Throughput 51.2596 MB/sec (NB=64.0745 MB/sec 512.596 MBit/sec) 200
> procs
> oThroughput 52.0488 MB/sec (NB=65.061 MB/sec 520.488 MBit/sec) 150
> procs
>
> Not as huge a jump as last night, but still rather far above what it is
> with LVM turned on.
>
> Anyone know why this might be?
>
>
> On Fri, 2002-01-18 at 17:08, karlheg@microsharp.com wrote:
> >
> > I had visions of using XFS on LVM volumes for our product. I would
> > like to start with some default LV sizes, and have the ability to
> > shrink and grow them as needed to meet individual requirements. For
> > this, I will need to use ext3fs. (and very stable LVM; still
> > learning about it.)
> --
> Austin Gonyou
> Systems Architect, CCNA
> Coremetrics, Inc.
> Phone: 512-698-7250
> email: austin@coremetrics.com
>
> "It is the part of a good shepherd to shear his flock, not to skin it."
> Latin Proverb
--
Austin Gonyou
Systems Architect, CCNA
Coremetrics, Inc.
Phone: 512-698-7250
email: austin@coremetrics.com
"It is the part of a good shepherd to shear his flock, not to skin it."
Latin Proverb
[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 232 bytes --]
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2002-01-19 1:33 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2002-01-18 22:30 [linux-lvm] LVM causing IO contention or slowdown? Austin Gonyou
2002-01-19 1:33 ` Austin Gonyou [this message]
2002-01-20 8:13 ` Stephen Lord
2002-01-20 23:55 ` Austin Gonyou
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=1011425563.3118.29.camel@UberGeek \
--to=austin@coremetrics.com \
--cc=linux-lvm@sistina.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