From: djani22@dynamicweb.hu
To: Neil Brown <neilb@cse.unsw.edu.au>
Cc: linux-raid@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: perfomance question.
Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2005 17:20:38 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <006f01c5a40b$03c58900$0400a8c0@LocalHost> (raw)
In-Reply-To: 17156.5547.61133.39733@cse.unsw.edu.au
Thanks for trying to help me!
My problem is (looks like) solved.
It was a kernel problem. (I think...)
When I switch to 2.6.13-rc6 (from rc3), the problem is gone!
It is very interesting!
I use SWRAID to distribute equal load to nodes.
(raid0 chunksize 32k)
In my system with 2.6.13-rc3 the "node-3" gets much more (4x - 5x) read
requests, but dont know why, dont ask! :-)
First I think, the XFS's log is somehow always on 3 rd chunk.
I send this question to XFS-list too, and get this answer:
"The XFS log is always write, except recoverying." - Thats right!
Next idea is to break more the 32k chunks, and send this previous letter to
here.
But I have more problems (network layer-bug) with 13-rc3, and try the newer
kernel, and the problem is gone. :-)
It looks like some network issue.
Thanks
Janos
----- Original Message -----
From: "Neil Brown" <neilb@cse.unsw.edu.au>
To: <djani22@dynamicweb.hu>
Cc: <linux-raid@vger.kernel.org>
Sent: Thursday, August 18, 2005 6:59 AM
Subject: Re: perfomance question.
> On Tuesday August 16, djani22@dynamicweb.hu wrote:
> > Hello list,
> >
> > I have performance problem. (again) :-)
> >
> > What chunk size is better in raid5, and raid0?
> > The lot of small chunks, or some bigger?
>
> This is highly dependant one workload and hardware performance.
> The best thing to do is develop a test that simulates your real
> workload and run it with various stripe sizes, and see which one wins.
>
> I suspect there would be very little gain in going to very small chunk
> sizes (<16k). Anywhere between there and 1Meg is worth trying.
>
> mdadm uses a default of 64k which is probably not too bad for most
> situations, but I cannot promise it being optimal for any.
>
> Sorry I cannot be more helpful.
>
> Your performance problem may not be chunk-size related. Maybe
> increasing the readahead (with blockdev) would help...
>
> NeilBrown
> -
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-raid" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2005-08-18 15:20 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 20+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <20050717182650.24540.patches@notabene>
2005-07-17 8:27 ` [PATCH md ] When resizing an array, we need to update resync_max_sectors as well as size NeilBrown
2005-07-17 12:10 ` Found a new bug! djani22
2005-07-17 22:13 ` Neil Brown
2005-07-17 22:31 ` djani22
2005-08-14 22:38 ` djani22
2005-08-15 1:21 ` Neil Brown
2005-08-15 10:50 ` djani22
2005-08-16 13:54 ` perfomance question djani22
2005-08-16 14:30 ` RAID6 Query Colonel Hell
2005-08-16 15:40 ` dean gaudet
2005-08-16 16:44 ` Colonel Hell
2005-08-18 4:59 ` perfomance question Neil Brown
2005-08-18 15:20 ` djani22 [this message]
2005-08-18 4:34 ` Found a new bug! Neil Brown
2005-08-18 15:39 ` djani22
2005-08-20 9:55 ` Oops in raid1? djani22
2005-08-20 15:53 ` Pallai Roland
2005-08-20 16:26 ` djani22
2005-08-20 16:50 ` Pallai Roland
2005-08-20 16:57 ` djani22
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='006f01c5a40b$03c58900$0400a8c0@LocalHost' \
--to=djani22@dynamicweb.hu \
--cc=linux-raid@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=neilb@cse.unsw.edu.au \
/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).