From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: NeilBrown Subject: Re: RAID6 rmw - new numbers Date: Thu, 4 Sep 2014 17:09:29 +1000 Message-ID: <20140904170929.4dce55ad@notabene.brown> References: <12EF8D94C6F8734FB2FF37B9FBEDD173586419F5@EXCHANGE.collogia.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; boundary="Sig_/8EMvg/amfx8C_zufuuo21nJ"; protocol="application/pgp-signature" Return-path: In-Reply-To: <12EF8D94C6F8734FB2FF37B9FBEDD173586419F5@EXCHANGE.collogia.de> Sender: linux-raid-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Markus Stockhausen Cc: "john@stoffel.org" , "linux-raid@vger.kernel.org" List-Id: linux-raid.ids --Sig_/8EMvg/amfx8C_zufuuo21nJ Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Sun, 31 Aug 2014 16:05:50 +0000 Markus Stockhausen wrote: > Hello, >=20 > I had some time for additional benchmarks. My initial numbers > were too low because I didn't push the system to its limits with > high parallelism. >=20 > Test program http://www.corpit.ru/mjt/iot.c > settings: 180 seconds random write, 3 runs, 64 threads, direct I/O > command line: iot -d -W64 -b -t 180 /dev/md0 >=20 > bsize w/o patch w/o patch w/o patch > min avg max > 4K 317KB/s 318KB/s 319KB/s > 8K 611KB/s 614KB/s 617KB/s > 16K 1153KB/s 1153KB/s 1154KB/s > 32K 2239KB/s 2253KB/s 2263KB/s > 64K 3944KB/s 3959KB/s 3978KB/s > 128K 7792KB/s 7891KB/s 8025KB/s > 256K 15456KB/s 15574KB/s 15805KB/s > 512K 32406KB/s 32564KB/s 32799KB/s > 1024K 57378KB/s 57965KB/s 58550KB/s >=20 > bsize with patch with patch with patch real math gain > min avg max gain in theory > 4K 417KB/s 420KB/s 423KB/s +32,1% +66% > 8K 806KB/s 818KB/s 826KB/s +33,2% +66% > 16K 1504KB/s 1518KB/s 1531KB/s +31,6% +66% > 32K 2993KB/s 3001KB/s 3016KB/s +33,2% +66% > 64K 5396KB/s 5477KB/s 5543KB/s +38,3% +66% > 128K 8971KB/s 9082KB/s 9169KB/s +15,1% +25% > 256K 15406KB/s 15545KB/s 15751KB/s -0,2% 0% > 512K 32361KB/s 32619KB/s 32981KB/s +0,1% 0% > 1024K 58134KB/s 58239KB/s 58419KB/s +0,4% 0% >=20 > As I got no feedback from Neil until now: >=20 > - Shall I resend the patches with the new numbers? > - What else can I do to push the patches further? Sorry I've been silent - there has been lots of other stuff happening. Thanks for the extra testing - it definitely looks good. I'll try to move this along soon, no need to resend. Thanks, NeilBrown --Sig_/8EMvg/amfx8C_zufuuo21nJ Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=signature.asc -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (GNU/Linux) iQIVAwUBVAgQKTnsnt1WYoG5AQJnWhAAqXxUuuytadBG22GyawZ/F2uy0EI8puKD Ws3Q0i+Jo85vfIaVGYHtSiO/khg1kYswiJ0o8o2rk3YiWOuDIHHnTJY6ZJEJ32JF PJWUhmHNQIAtFB3e9PyKjsjY4EVXW2Q9ZlhzX4IuRG5aYkQ8OcAmrLcXR66Wxom3 o8ysj3kN1TukrSbFUmzgDmqezkzSRicev7uFZq4taYDyIGWaYzmk2YtMxMoLzv8N LnAHvmVC2ksvMDgTr+4Wdqk0gfTf6BnRBP1WnhhMLJFqozR4K21LVyGRq/3q+32a JQrlkBNeD7M6AI/YnzAXwgxLUZJwNJkH1aYPeG5B4m9ukbvhKBAg4HHaCSH2gVvq QnPx04YKJYeGP7E+FpCw93m9tQ2VRSCUJxvOpBCpH5xz/ThKiLgI8/K+rMnH37og mTv2a6UNpk1aBr3bX52QbmeLWMLsupk8DcWhGIuBENcBkqANW9yoVAjfr80yLzCq NoGNjIw7gqthXjjMnchRH5S/LJo8V4aEnTtE5o00dTHMj9u7bP4fXsHeq8+wbcJl JWskpDQw9SGeLIUS+xBHoKSCLoF0QTfZR2SwpV5cZJjnEVhRzLcyACwYWeMpNtmY EjW73LLtPjVvqzdiuO5GcfM6jm9IBXBFlY19Ev59unaNB+XPPqFJybcquVQurYqd KYDuat+AI8c= =6yZ5 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Sig_/8EMvg/amfx8C_zufuuo21nJ--