From: "chris (fool) mccraw" <gently@gmail.com>
To: LVM general discussion and development <linux-lvm@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [linux-lvm] advice for curing terrible snapshot performance?
Date: Mon, 15 Nov 2010 10:05:55 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <AANLkTikgCFTtMBdDBirkyCto7r7N8oDxhqhMm1v+TOgF@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTik5soU2jrS+MpDbAO6PBTEw-Qy-gtUiiyrXkEgs@mail.gmail.com>
On Fri, Nov 12, 2010 at 16:17, chris (fool) mccraw <gently@gmail.com> wrote:
> interestingly the default snapshot chunk size on my system:
>
> �LVM version: � � 2.02.56(1)-RHEL5 (2010-04-22)
> �Library version: 1.02.39-RHEL5 (2010-04-22)
> �Driver version: �4.11.5
>
> is 4k. �a tutorial i was reading suggested it was 64k, and i didn't
> doublecheck if that was true. �i am going to have to wait til after
> business hours to run more thorough tests, but i still see a slowdown
> way over 10x even at 64k chunk size with a single snapshot. �i'll try
> it at all the different available chunk sizes and report back by
> monday.
Well, I only made it through most chunk sizes. here were my results:
(previously obtained:
no snapshot = ~11sec (727MB/sec)
1 snapshot @4k chunks = ~102sec (78MB/sec)
)
newly obtained:
1 snapshot @16k chunks = ~639sec (12MB/sec)
1 snapshot @32k chunks = ~367sec (21MB/sec)
1 snapshot @64k chunks = ~252sec (31MB/sec)
1 snapshot @256k chunks = ~145sec (55MB/sec)
1 snapshot @512k chunks = ~100sec (80MB/sec)
wish i'd tried 8kb, since that's the most interesting area of the
graph now that i lay the numbers out together. but no matter what
size i use, it's still nearly a factor of 10, and my numbers with the
default 4k chunks were almost as good as it gets.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2010-11-15 18:06 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 17+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2010-11-12 21:52 [linux-lvm] advice for curing terrible snapshot performance? chris (fool) mccraw
2010-11-12 22:28 ` Joe Pruett
2010-11-12 23:30 ` chris (fool) mccraw
2010-11-12 23:36 ` Joe Pruett
2010-11-13 0:17 ` chris (fool) mccraw
2010-11-13 0:58 ` Stuart D Gathman
2010-11-15 17:52 ` chris (fool) mccraw
2010-11-15 18:04 ` Romeo Theriault
2010-11-15 18:08 ` Joe Pruett
2010-11-15 18:18 ` chris (fool) mccraw
2010-11-15 23:51 ` Stuart D. Gathman
2010-11-16 0:09 ` chris (fool) mccraw
2010-11-15 18:05 ` chris (fool) mccraw [this message]
2010-11-15 14:35 ` Romeo Theriault
2010-11-15 17:46 ` chris (fool) mccraw
2010-11-15 20:37 ` Stephane Chazelas
2010-11-15 22:57 ` Stuart D. Gathman
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=AANLkTikgCFTtMBdDBirkyCto7r7N8oDxhqhMm1v+TOgF@mail.gmail.com \
--to=gently@gmail.com \
--cc=linux-lvm@redhat.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;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).