linux-raid.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Martin Steigerwald <Martin@lichtvoll.de>
To: xfs@oss.sgi.com
Cc: Linux RAID <linux-raid@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: 12x performance drop on md/linux+sw raid1 due to barriers [xfs]
Date: Sun, 14 Dec 2008 19:33:36 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <200812141933.37398.Martin@lichtvoll.de> (raw)

Am Sonntag 14 Dezember 2008 schrieben Sie:
> Am Sonntag 14 Dezember 2008 schrieb Peter Grandi:

> > But talking about barriers in the context of metadata, and for a
> > "benchmark" which has a metadata barrier every 11KB, and without
> > knowing whether the storage subsystem can queue multiple barrier
> > operations seems to be pretty crass and meangingless, if not
> > misleading. A waste of time at best.
>
> Hmmm, as far as I understood it would be that the IO scheduler would
> handle barrier requests itself if the device was not capable for
> queuing and ordering requests.
>
> Only thing that occurs to me know, that with barriers off it has more
> freedom to order requests and that might matter for that metadata
> intensive workload. With barriers it can only order 11 KB of requests.
> Without it could order as much as it wants... but even then the
> filesystem would have to make sure that metadata changes land in the
> journal first and then in-place. And this would involve a sync, if no
> barrier request was possible.

No it hasn't. As I do not think XFS or any other filesystem would be keen 
to see the IO scheduler reorder a journal write after a corresponding 
meta data in-place write. So either the filesystem uses sync...

> So I still don't get why even that metadata intense workload of tar -xf
> linux-2.6.27.tar.bz2 - or may better bzip2 -d the tar before - should
> be slower with barriers + write cache on than with no barriers and
> write cache off.

... or it tells the scheduler that this journal write should come prior to 
the later writes. This is what a barrier would do - except for that it 
cannot utilize any additional in-hardware /  in-firmware support.

So why on earth can write cache off +  barrier off be faster than write 
cache on + barrier on in *any workload*? There must be some technical 
detail that I miss.

Ciao,
-- 
Martin 'Helios' Steigerwald - http://www.Lichtvoll.de
GPG: 03B0 0D6C 0040 0710 4AFA  B82F 991B EAAC A599 84C7

             reply	other threads:[~2008-12-14 18:33 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 30+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2008-12-14 18:33 Martin Steigerwald [this message]
  -- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2008-12-06 14:28 12x performance drop on md/linux+sw raid1 due to barriers [xfs] Justin Piszcz
2008-12-06 15:36 ` Eric Sandeen
2008-12-06 20:35   ` Redeeman
2008-12-13 12:54   ` Justin Piszcz
2008-12-13 17:26     ` Martin Steigerwald
2008-12-13 17:40       ` Eric Sandeen
2008-12-14  3:31         ` Redeeman
2008-12-14 14:02           ` Peter Grandi
2008-12-14 18:12             ` Martin Steigerwald
2008-12-14 22:02               ` Peter Grandi
2008-12-15 22:38                 ` Dave Chinner
2008-12-16  9:39                   ` Martin Steigerwald
2008-12-16 20:57                     ` Peter Grandi
2008-12-16 23:14                     ` Dave Chinner
2008-12-17 21:40                 ` Bill Davidsen
2008-12-18  8:20                   ` Leon Woestenberg
2008-12-18 23:33                     ` Bill Davidsen
2008-12-21 19:16                     ` Peter Grandi
2008-12-22 13:19                       ` Leon Woestenberg
2008-12-18 22:26                   ` Dave Chinner
2008-12-20 14:06               ` Peter Grandi
2008-12-14 18:35             ` Martin Steigerwald
2008-12-14 17:49           ` Martin Steigerwald
2008-12-14 23:36         ` Dave Chinner
2008-12-13 18:01       ` David Lethe
2008-12-06 18:42 ` Peter Grandi
2008-12-11  0:20 ` Bill Davidsen
2008-12-11  9:18   ` Justin Piszcz
2008-12-11  9:24     ` Justin Piszcz

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=200812141933.37398.Martin@lichtvoll.de \
    --to=martin@lichtvoll.de \
    --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).