From: Jakob Oestergaard <jakob@unthought.net>
To: Gregory Leblanc <gleblanc@linuxweasel.com>
Cc: Vladimir Milovanovic <vlad@webmail.co.za>,
linux-raid <linux-raid@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Tiobench results LOWER with more threads
Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2002 13:19:18 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20021018111918.GC7875@unthought.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20021018023137.GC18294@peeps.cable.rcn.com>
On Thu, Oct 17, 2002 at 07:31:37PM -0700, Gregory Leblanc wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 17, 2002 at 11:50:14PM +0200, Jakob Oestergaard wrote:
> > On Tue, Oct 15, 2002 at 10:20:55AM +0200, Vladimir Milovanovic wrote:
> > > OK, just joined the list and rad the faq, and something caught my eye.
> > > Tiobench results are apparently supposed to INCREASE when there are more
> > > threads.
> >
> > No, what gave you that idea?
> >
> > It is so much easier for the kernel to handle one sequential stream of
> > I/O, instead of many streams.
> >
> > If you have more than one stream, you need to seek. Seeking is bad. One
> > sequential I/O is almost always (with the notable exception of RAID-1
> > reads) faster in total sustained throughput, and always (as in really
> > always) faster in per-thread sustained throughput.
>
> Err, so are you saying that a single sequential I/O is slower on RAID
> 1 when compared with a single disk? That doesn't make a lot of
> sense. There -are- instances where parallel I/O is required. In
> these cases, any RAID-1 should be much faster than a single disk, as
> should RAID 10. I'm not sure that RAID 5 should give a similar
> benefit, but given the cost of disks, I don't care about RAID 5.
The exception I made was:
"One sequential I/O is almost always (with the notable exception of
RAID-1 reads) faster in total sustained throughput,..."
What I wanted to say was: One sequential reader is usually faster than N
readers are in total. Except on an N-disk RAID-1, where up to N readers
will be faster in total than one reader.
An N-disk RAID-1 will scale with up to N readers.
There's some fuzz on these measurements, because a sequential read on a
filesystem is not a sequential read on the disk (because of fs
metadata), so therefore often a single threaded read on an N-disk RAID-1
will be faster than on a single disk - and maybe RAID-1 will not scale
up to N readers, but only N-1, but that all depends on the fs - and
let's not go too deep into that for now :)
--
................................................................
: jakob@unthought.net : And I see the elder races, :
:.........................: putrid forms of man :
: Jakob Østergaard : See him rise and claim the earth, :
: OZ9ABN : his downfall is at hand. :
:.........................:............{Konkhra}...............:
-
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
prev parent reply other threads:[~2002-10-18 11:19 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2002-10-15 8:20 Tiobench results LOWER with more threads Vladimir Milovanovic
2002-10-17 21:50 ` Jakob Oestergaard
2002-10-18 2:31 ` Gregory Leblanc
2002-10-18 2:52 ` Maurice Hilarius
2002-10-18 7:48 ` Vladimir Milovanovic
2002-10-18 11:19 ` Jakob Oestergaard [this message]
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=20021018111918.GC7875@unthought.net \
--to=jakob@unthought.net \
--cc=gleblanc@linuxweasel.com \
--cc=linux-raid@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=vlad@webmail.co.za \
/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).