From: Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com>
To: Justin Piszcz <jpiszcz@lucidpixels.com>
Cc: linux-raid@vger.kernel.org, xfs@oss.sgi.com
Subject: Re: Linux RAID & XFS Question - Multiple levels of concurrency = faster I/O on md/RAID 5?
Date: Mon, 3 Nov 2008 09:03:13 +1100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20081102220313.GF19509@disturbed> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.1.10.0811010424270.16517@p34.internal.lan>
On Sat, Nov 01, 2008 at 04:29:18AM -0400, Justin Piszcz wrote:
> Overall the raw speed according to vmstat seems to increase as you add more
> load to the server. So I decided to time running three jobs on two parts
> of data and compare it with a single job that proceses them all.
>
> Three jobs run con-currently: (2 parts/each):
>
> 1- 59.99user 18.25system 2:02.07elapsed 64%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata 0maxresident)k
> 0inputs+0outputs (0major+21000minor)pagefaults 0swaps
>
> 2- 59.86user 17.78system 1:59.96elapsed 64%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata 0maxresident)k
> 0inputs+0outputs (21major+20958minor)pagefaults 0swaps
>
> 3- 74.77user 22.83system 2:13.30elapsed 73%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata 0maxresident)k
> 0inputs+0outputs (36major+21827minor)pagefaults 0swaps
>
> One job with (6 parts):
>
> 1 188.66user 56.84system 4:38.52elapsed 88%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata 0maxresident)k
> 0inputs+0outputs (71major+43245minor)pagefaults 0swaps
>
> Why is running 3 jobs con-currently that take care of two parts each more than
> twice as fast than running one job for six parts?
Usually this is because the workload is I/O latency sensitive and so
can't keep the disk fully busy because it is serialising on I/O. By
running jobs concurrently you are reducing the impact of serialising
on an I/O because there are still two other concurrent jobs issuing
I/O instead of none...
> I am using XFS and md/RAID-5, the CFQ scheduler and kernel 2.6.27.4.
> Is this more of an md/raid issue ( I am guessing ) than XFS? I remember
> reading of some RAID acceleration patches awhile back that were supposed
> to boost performance quite a bit, what happened to them?
Without further information, I'd say a pure application issue - the
disk subsystem is clearly fast enough to handle much higher load
than the single job is capable of issuing.
Cheers,
Dave.
--
Dave Chinner
david@fromorbit.com
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2008-11-02 22:03 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2008-11-01 8:29 Linux RAID & XFS Question - Multiple levels of concurrency = faster I/O on md/RAID 5? Justin Piszcz
2008-11-01 10:55 ` John Robinson
2008-11-01 12:00 ` Justin Piszcz
2008-11-01 12:14 ` John Robinson
2008-11-02 22:03 ` Dave Chinner [this message]
2008-11-02 22:21 ` Dan Williams
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=20081102220313.GF19509@disturbed \
--to=david@fromorbit.com \
--cc=jpiszcz@lucidpixels.com \
--cc=linux-raid@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=xfs@oss.sgi.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).