linux-raid.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: John Robinson <john.robinson@anonymous.org.uk>
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: Sat, 01 Nov 2008 12:14:44 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <490C4834.3050404@anonymous.org.uk> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.1.10.0811010758240.1053@p34.internal.lan>

On 01/11/2008 12:00, Justin Piszcz wrote:
> On Sat, 1 Nov 2008, John Robinson wrote:
>> On 01/11/2008 08:29, Justin Piszcz wrote:
>> [...]
>>> 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?
>>
>> Because you have multiple CPUs?
> 
> So 1/4 of a quad core q6600 cannot achieve higher rates of I/O due to the
> parity operations being that costly?
> 
> Is the only way to increase the single-threaded speed to increase the 
> maximum
> CPU core speed/get a faster CPU, and/or theoretically a multi-threaded 
> md-raid
> could maximize throughput?

Actually I was thinking that your test job - I think you said it used 
tar - is single-threaded and CPU-bound on one core, and doesn't saturate 
the MD subsystem. Your jobs are 75% user time to 25% system time, and 
the user time is not parellelisable until you do it yourself by 
splitting the work up.

Cheers,

John.


  reply	other threads:[~2008-11-01 12:14 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 [this message]
2008-11-02 22:03 ` Dave Chinner
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=490C4834.3050404@anonymous.org.uk \
    --to=john.robinson@anonymous.org.uk \
    --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).