From: Urs Thuermann <urs@isnogud.escape.de>
To: linux-lvm@sistina.com
Subject: Re: [linux-lvm] LVM and *bad* performance (no striping)
Date: 15 May 2001 13:46:15 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <m2n18eygvs.fsf@isnogud.escape.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <200104111949.f3BJnFHt014761@webber.adilger.int>; from Andreas Dilger on Wed, 11 Apr 2001 13:49:14 -0600 (MDT)
Andreas Dilger <adilger@turbolinux.com> writes:
> I'm hoping this patch will make it into the stock LVM because it aligns
> all of the large VGDA structs to PAGE_SIZE (at least 4k pages), and the
> PE alignment matches MD RAID device alignment.
Sorry, I hadn't time to test your patch earlier. I wanted to try it
yesterday but lvm-0.9.1-beta7 with your patch applied doesn't compile.
There are undefined symbols
$ make
...
gcc -L../tools/lib -llvm-10 -o vgchange vgchange.o
vgchange.o: In function `main':
/home/urs/tmp/LVM/0.9.1_beta7-dilger/tools/vgchange.c:635: undefined reference to `LVM_PE_ON_DISK_BASE'
/home/urs/tmp/LVM/0.9.1_beta7-dilger/tools/vgchange.c:638: undefined reference to `LVM_DISK_SIZE'
When I have done my performance tests I had a stock linux-2.4.3 and
user space tools from lvm-0.9 running. I now repeated the tests with
lvm-0.9.1-beta7, both user space tools and kernel (recreated all PVs,
VGs and LVs). However, the results with these versions are the same.
I also did some tests with another hard disk drive. My previous tests
were with a IBM DCAS-34330W SCSI-U2W. I now did some tests with a NEC
DSE2100S SCSI2 drive. Again, LVM is much slower with the standard
512 byte block size:
# pvcreate /dev/sdc4
pvcreate -- physical volume "/dev/sdc4" successfully created
# vgcreate vg1 /dev/sdc4
vgcreate -- INFO: using default physical extent size 4 MB
vgcreate -- INFO: maximum logical volume size is 255.99 Gigabyte
vgcreate -- doing automatic backup of volume group "vg1"
vgcreate -- volume group "vg1" successfully created and activated
# lvcreate -n test vg1 -l31
lvcreate -- doing automatic backup of "vg1"
lvcreate -- logical volume "/dev/vg1/test" successfully created
# time dd if=/dev/sdc4 of=/dev/null
257040+0 records in
257040+0 records out
real 0m37.205s
user 0m0.840s
sys 0m3.780s
# time dd if=/dev/vg1/test of=/dev/null
253952+0 records in
253952+0 records out
real 2m52.368s
user 0m1.330s
sys 0m12.390s
# time dd if=/dev/vg1/test of=/dev/null bs=8k
15872+0 records in
15872+0 records out
real 0m43.501s
user 0m0.050s
sys 0m4.600s
# time dd if=/dev/vg1/test of=/dev/null bs=16k
7936+0 records in
7936+0 records out
real 0m40.806s
user 0m0.070s
sys 0m4.290s
# time dd if=/dev/vg1/test of=/dev/null bs=32k
3968+0 records in
3968+0 records out
real 0m38.777s
user 0m0.030s
sys 0m4.290s
What I find surprising is that the system time increases to 12.390s
with LVM compared to 3.780s on /dev/sdc4. That is approx. 34ms of
overhead per 512-block which I find a lot for the simple mapping of
block numbers. But this still does not explain the much longer real
elapsed time.
Is there another patch (maybe to produce some debugging output) I
could try to find the reason for this performnace hit?
And am I really the only one who sees this? I would really be
interested to hear from some more people about performance for their
LVM.
urs
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2001-05-15 11:46 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 22+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2001-02-26 15:44 [linux-lvm] LVM and *bad* performance (no striping) Urs Thuermann
2001-02-26 20:39 ` Joe Thornber
2001-02-26 21:03 ` Jorg de Jong
2001-02-26 21:38 ` Rik van Riel
2001-02-27 8:35 ` Patrick Caulfield
2001-02-27 12:21 ` Urs Thuermann
2001-02-28 11:05 ` Heinz J. Mauelshagen
2001-04-10 19:30 ` Urs Thuermann
2001-04-10 21:37 ` Andreas Dilger
2001-04-11 11:23 ` Urs Thuermann
2001-04-11 19:49 ` Andreas Dilger
2001-04-11 22:00 ` Terje Kvernes
2001-05-15 11:46 ` Urs Thuermann [this message]
2001-05-15 12:13 ` Patrick Caulfield
2001-05-26 11:17 ` Urs Thuermann
2001-05-27 7:47 ` Andreas Dilger
2001-05-27 9:47 ` Urs Thuermann
2001-05-27 17:01 ` [linux-lvm] LVM and *bad* performance (counterexample) idsfa
2001-05-15 17:08 ` [linux-lvm] LVM and *bad* performance (no striping) Andreas Dilger
2001-05-26 11:23 ` Urs Thuermann
2001-02-26 21:41 ` Rik van Riel
2001-02-27 10:33 ` Urs Thuermann
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=m2n18eygvs.fsf@isnogud.escape.de \
--to=urs@isnogud.escape.de \
--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