From: Shailendra Tripathi <stripathi@agami.com>
To: Sascha Nitsch <sgi@linuxhowtos.org>
Cc: xfs@oss.sgi.com
Subject: Re: Weird performance decrease
Date: Tue, 07 Nov 2006 10:29:22 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4550D082.3030802@agami.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <200611071144.32925.sgi@linuxhowtos.org>
Hi Sascha,
Please run the iostat continuously to monitor the disk
performance. Please monitor the await field and %util field on the
device. Looking at this, it does look like there is some bottleneck in
I/O path (or number of requests generated are too high). Please note
that when you take iostat just once, it gives the average stats on the
device (accumulative). So, you are not getting the real picture.
However, I can see that the average I/O response time is way too high.
(await=115.27). This means that an I/O has been spending average 115 ms
(too bad). It includes the time it spent in the disk I/O queue (called
elevator queue) and actual service time. Your disk is performing good as
it is service time is 3.05 ms This time has less to do with
caching/buffers availability.
Again, it appears to me the number of requests generated are
overwhelming the device. That is. the deivce has seen overwhelming I/O
in recent past.
For example, when I do this:
dd if=/dev/zero of=/tmp/1 bs=32k count=100000
I see this (below). Note that I see await of 218 ms.
$ iostat -x hda6
avg-cpu: %user %nice %sys %iowait %idle
1.75 0.00 0.41 0.21 97.63
Device: rrqm/s wrqm/s r/s w/s rsec/s wsec/s rkB/s wkB/s
avgrq-sz avgqu-sz await svctm %util
hda6 0.00 0.77 0.00 0.06 0.00 6.59 0.00 3.30
114.62 0.01 218.10 2.22 0.01
> here are some measurements:
>
> == startup (very high performance) ==
>
> top:
> Cpu0 : 0.2% us, 0.0% sy, 0.0% ni, 99.8% id, 0.0% wa, 0.0% hi, 0.0% si
> Cpu1 : 0.0% us, 0.0% sy, 0.0% ni, 100.0% id, 0.0% wa, 0.0% hi, 0.0% si
> Cpu2 : 0.0% us, 0.0% sy, 0.0% ni, 100.0% id, 0.0% wa, 0.0% hi, 0.0% si
> Cpu3 : 0.0% us, 0.0% sy, 0.0% ni, 100.0% id, 0.0% wa, 0.0% hi, 0.0% si
> Mem: 2074432k total, 133784k used, 1940648k free, 15652k buffers
> Swap: 2618488k total, 160k used, 2618328k free, 53508k cached
>
> iostat -x
> Device: rrqm/s wrqm/s r/s w/s rsec/s wsec/s rkB/s wkB/s
> avgrq-sz avgqu-sz await svctm %util
> sdc 0.08 1.77 0.47 2.48 9.37 58.29 4.68 29.14
> 22.94 0.32 107.23 3.07 0.91
>
> == shortly before performance drops ==
>
> top:
> Cpu0 : 0.0% us, 0.2% sy, 0.0% ni, 99.8% id, 0.0% wa, 0.0% hi, 0.0% si
> Cpu1 : 0.0% us, 0.2% sy, 0.0% ni, 99.8% id, 0.0% wa, 0.0% hi, 0.0% si
> Cpu2 : 0.0% us, 0.0% sy, 0.0% ni, 100.0% id, 0.0% wa, 0.0% hi, 0.0% si
> Cpu3 : 0.0% us, 0.0% sy, 0.0% ni, 100.0% id, 0.0% wa, 0.0% hi, 0.0% si
> Mem: 2074432k total, 1342464k used, 731968k free, 17300k buffers
> Swap: 2618488k total, 160k used, 2618328k free, 645180k cached
>
> iostat -x
> Device: rrqm/s wrqm/s r/s w/s rsec/s wsec/s rkB/s wkB/s
> avgrq-sz avgqu-sz await svctm %util
> sdc 0.08 1.96 0.47 2.55 9.35 63.53 4.68 31.77
> 24.11 0.35 115.27 3.05 0.92
>
> == directly after drop ==
> top:
> Cpu0 : 0.0% us, 0.6% sy, 0.0% ni, 98.6% id, 0.6% wa, 0.2% hi, 0.0% si
> Cpu1 : 0.0% us, 0.2% sy, 0.0% ni, 99.8% id, 0.0% wa, 0.0% hi, 0.0% si
> Cpu2 : 0.0% us, 0.0% sy, 0.0% ni, 100.0% id, 0.0% wa, 0.0% hi, 0.0% si
> Cpu3 : 0.0% us, 0.0% sy, 0.0% ni, 100.0% id, 0.0% wa, 0.0% hi, 0.0% si
> Mem: 2074432k total, 1355704k used, 718728k free, 532k buffers
> Swap: 2618488k total, 160k used, 2618328k free, 656548k cached
>
> iostat -x
> Device: rrqm/s wrqm/s r/s w/s rsec/s wsec/s rkB/s wkB/s
> avgrq-sz avgqu-sz await svctm %util
> sdc 0.08 1.96 0.47 2.56 9.36 63.87 4.68 31.93
> 24.16 0.35 115.32 3.05 0.93
>
> notice the buffer size drop
>
> == after running for a while with slow performance ==
> top:
> Cpu0 : 0.0% us, 1.0% sy, 0.0% ni, 85.0% id, 14.0% wa, 0.0% hi, 0.0% si
> Cpu1 : 0.0% us, 0.2% sy, 0.0% ni, 97.0% id, 2.8% wa, 0.0% hi, 0.0% si
> Cpu2 : 0.0% us, 0.0% sy, 0.0% ni, 100.0% id, 0.0% wa, 0.0% hi, 0.0% si
> Cpu3 : 0.0% us, 0.0% sy, 0.0% ni, 100.0% id, 0.0% wa, 0.0% hi, 0.0% si
> Mem: 2074432k total, 1065216k used, 1009216k free, 292k buffers
> Swap: 2618488k total, 160k used, 2618328k free, 296888k cached
>
> iostat -x
> Device: rrqm/s wrqm/s r/s w/s rsec/s wsec/s rkB/s wkB/s
> avgrq-sz avgqu-sz await svctm %util
> sdc 0.08 1.97 0.50 2.69 10.16 67.99 5.08 34.00
> 24.52 0.36 111.35 3.10 0.99
>
> without buffers and low cache it's no wonder that the io wait increases.
> But why get the buffers and and cache disabled and not rebuild?
>
>
> A Note: the workload and types of io operations are the same from the first to
> the last second, nothing is changing.
> what iostat fails to detect ist that on average, there are ~60 reads/s and ~60
> writes/s.
>
> Average read time is starting at 30ns/read attempt (on a non-existig file;
> put still pretty impressive)
> write time (including average creation of 4.3 directories/write) starts
> at .3ms and it stays at that speed until the drop.
>
> After that it start to increase to more than 19ms for read ops and 4ms for
> write ops.
>
> I'm absolutely running out of possible ideas and workarounds.
>
> Regards,
> Sascha
>
prev parent reply other threads:[~2006-11-07 18:38 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2006-11-06 9:28 Weird performance decrease Sascha Nitsch
2006-11-06 11:05 ` Ruben Rubio
2006-11-06 11:31 ` Sascha Nitsch
2006-11-06 23:31 ` Shailendra Tripathi
2006-11-07 10:44 ` Sascha Nitsch
2006-11-07 18:29 ` Shailendra Tripathi [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=4550D082.3030802@agami.com \
--to=stripathi@agami.com \
--cc=sgi@linuxhowtos.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