Linux LVM users
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "Kevin P. Fleming" <kpfleming@backtobasicsmgmt.com>
To: linux-lvm@redhat.com
Cc: Miquel van Smoorenburg <miquels@cistron.nl>
Subject: Re: [linux-lvm] Re: IO scheduler, queue depth, nr_requests
Date: Mon Feb 16 19:32:00 2004	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <40316114.30207@backtobasicsmgmt.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20040216133047.GA9330@suse.de>

Jens Axboe wrote:
 > On Mon, Feb 16 2004, Miquel van Smoorenburg wrote:
 >
 >>Hello,
 >>
 >>	as you might have seen from the linux-kernel mailinglist
 >>I have been testing for months now with a fileserver set up to
 >>use XFS over LVM2 on a 3ware RAID5 controller.
 >>

I too have been fighting lower-than-expected performance with this 
identical combination, other than using a P4 2.8GHz instead of 3.0GHz, 
and 1GB RAM instead of 2GB. My 3ware 8506-8 has six Seagate Barracuda 
SATA drives behind it, which are very fast on their own :-) Try as I 
might, with the 2.6 kernel I have not been able to generate a bonnie++ 
or iozone run that provided performance better than a single disk, even 
with the 3ware card in JBOD, RAID-0 or RAID-1 mode. I had been 
conversing with 3ware about it, but to no real effect given than they 
don't support 2.6 yet.

 >>By fiddling about today I just found that changing
 >>/sys/block/sda/queue/nr_requests from 128 to something above
 >>the queue depth of the 3ware controller (256 doesn't work,
 >>384 and up do) also fixes the problem.

I will try this as well this evening and report my results.

  parent reply	other threads:[~2004-02-17  0:33 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 33+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2004-02-16  9:11 [linux-lvm] IO scheduler, queue depth, nr_requests Miquel van Smoorenburg
2004-02-16  8:30 ` [linux-lvm] " Jens Axboe
2004-02-16  9:01   ` Joe Thornber
2004-02-16 19:32   ` Kevin P. Fleming [this message]
2004-02-17  1:46   ` Kevin P. Fleming
2004-02-18 10:29   ` Miquel van Smoorenburg
2004-02-19  8:51     ` Miquel van Smoorenburg
2004-02-19  8:50       ` Andrew Morton
2004-02-19  9:08         ` Miquel van Smoorenburg
2004-02-19  9:08           ` Andrew Morton
2004-02-19 10:23             ` Miquel van Smoorenburg
2004-02-19 10:26               ` Jens Axboe
2004-02-19 15:58                 ` Miquel van Smoorenburg
2004-02-19 17:52                   ` Nick Piggin
2004-02-19 18:52                     ` Miquel van Smoorenburg
2004-02-19 19:15                       ` Nick Piggin
2004-02-19 20:16                       ` [linux-lvm] [PATCH] per process request limits (was Re: IO scheduler, queue depth, nr_requests) Nick Piggin
2004-02-19 20:25                         ` [linux-lvm] " Andrew Morton
2004-02-19 20:40                           ` Nick Piggin
2004-02-19 21:32                             ` Andrew Morton
2004-02-23  8:41                               ` [linux-lvm] [PATCH] bdi_congestion_funp (was: Re: [PATCH] per process request limits (was Re: IO scheduler, queue depth, nr_requests)) Miquel van Smoorenburg
2004-02-20  9:56                                 ` [linux-lvm] " Joe Thornber
2004-02-20  9:59                                   ` Jens Axboe
2004-02-23  8:45                                     ` Miquel van Smoorenburg
2004-02-22 14:55                                       ` Andrew Morton
2004-02-20  9:57                                 ` Jens Axboe
2004-02-24 12:54                                   ` [linux-lvm] Queue congestion: passing down vs passing up [PATCH] Miquel van Smoorenburg
2004-02-19 20:52                         ` [linux-lvm] Re: [PATCH] per process request limits (was Re: IO scheduler, queue depth, nr_requests) Nick Piggin
2004-02-19  9:11           ` [linux-lvm] Re: IO scheduler, queue depth, nr_requests Nick Piggin
2004-02-19 10:26             ` Jens Axboe
2004-02-19  8:51       ` Nick Piggin
2004-02-19  9:00         ` Miquel van Smoorenburg
2004-02-19  9:00           ` Nick Piggin

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=40316114.30207@backtobasicsmgmt.com \
    --to=kpfleming@backtobasicsmgmt.com \
    --cc=linux-lvm@redhat.com \
    --cc=miquels@cistron.nl \
    /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