public inbox for linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Craig Tierney <ctierney@hpti.com>
To: Jeremy Higdon <jeremy@sgi.com>
Cc: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Question about Qlogic performance in 2.6 kernel
Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2004 06:41:08 -0600	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <1097757667.2939.9.camel@localhost.localdomain> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20041014030340.GA290349@sgi.com>

On Wed, 2004-10-13 at 21:03, Jeremy Higdon wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 13, 2004 at 06:28:20PM -0600, Craig Tierney wrote:
> > I am seeing a large disparity in reads and writes from
> > my Raid box under the 2.6 kernel.  I have tried this from
> > an Itanium box runing RHEL 4 beta and an Opteron box running
> > SUSE 9.1 professional.  In both cases I am using 2 qlogic
> > QLA2200F HBAs.  Each HBA talks to one lun from the array, and
> > I use dm to create a filesystem.
> > 
> > Using lmdd to create a single stream of IO, I see 190 MB/s for
> > writes, but only 55 MB/s for reads.  The vendor says reads and
> > writes can be as much as 300 MB/s if I had the right HBAs, but
> > the write performance is good for 2 1 Gb/s HBAs.  
> > 
> > I tried this with a 2.4 kernel on a dual Xeon box.  Performance
> > was 150 MB/s for both reads and writes.  The read performance was
> > that high only after I changed /proc/sys/vm/max-readahead to 1023.
> > 
> > I tried changing the readahead size in 2.6 using blockdev.  The
> > readahead was much larger by default than the 2.4 kernel.  However,
> > no matter how large I set the readahead (as large as 1 MB), the
> > read performance did not change.
> > 
> > I read on the kernel list that in the linux-2.6.9-rc3, some changes
> > to the readahead code path had been merged that was supposed to
> > simplify the logic.  I tried the patch to see if affected performance.
> > It did not.
> > 
> > Does anyone have some suggestions on how to improve the read performance
> > under 2.6?
> > 
> > Thanks,
> > Craig
> 
> 
> It's my experience that changing readahead on devices under a dm
> volume does not actually change the amount of readahead you get.
> 
> Your results suggest that you may be having the same problem.

I read that somewhere in the docs at one point.  I tried changing
the readahead on the dm and on the luns themselves.  By
running blockdev, I saw that the values did indeed change for the
luns.  My read tests showed no change in performance when
I read from the filesystem or each of the luns directly.

Craig


      reply	other threads:[~2004-10-14 12:43 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 3+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2004-10-14  0:28 Question about Qlogic performance in 2.6 kernel Craig Tierney
2004-10-14  3:03 ` Jeremy Higdon
2004-10-14 12:41   ` Craig Tierney [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=1097757667.2939.9.camel@localhost.localdomain \
    --to=ctierney@hpti.com \
    --cc=jeremy@sgi.com \
    --cc=linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org \
    /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