Re: Interesting disk throughput performance problem

Mike Black
2001-07-22T10:44:56Z

Not enough info (plenty for guessing though :-)

First off show "hdparm -i /dev/hd_" and "hdparm /dev/hd_" -- this will
ensure both drives have things like DMA, etc.
Next -- you didn't say what benchmarks you're using locally.
And as the previous poster said provide "cat /proc/interrupts".

----- Original Message -----
From: "Jimmie Mayfield" <mayfield+usenet@sackheads.org>
To: <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Sent: Saturday, July 21, 2001 11:33 PM
Subject: Interesting disk throughput performance problem

> Hi. I'm running into some disk throughput issues that I can't explain.
> Hopefully someone reading this can offer an explanation.
>
> One of my machines is running 2.4.5 and has 2 hard drives: a 7200 rpm
> ATA100 Maxtor and a 5400 rpm ATA33 IBM. Each drive is a master on its own
> controller (AMI CMD649 as found on the IWill KT266-R). Both drives
contain
> reiserfs 3.6x filesystems.
>
> By all local benchmarks, the 7200 rpm drive is the faster drive. But this
> doesn't seem to be the case for large files originating from remote
clients.
> Witness:
>
> My crude test involves scp'ing a 100MB file from another machine on my
home
> network over 100bT ethernet.
>
> 1) scp to the 5400rpm drive: roughly 10MB/sec.
> 2) scp to the 7200rpm drive: roughly 2MB/sec.
>
> I've tried 'tail' and 'notail' mount options with no change (as expected
since
> this is a single large file). I suspect that the machine would become
CPU-bound
> somewhere in the 20MB/sec range (see below for my reasoning).
>
> I see the same sort of behavior using Samba though not nearly as
> pronounced (the 5400rpm drive is merely 2x as fast as the 7200rpm drive).
>
> Okay. Since the test involved 2 separate drives with different
geometries,
> I figured this might be due to physical block location. Perhaps the file
> is getting allocated to the fastest cylinders on the 5400 rpm drive and
> the slowest cylinders on the 7200 rpm drive. Or it could be a
fragmentation
> issue.
>
> So I tried the test locally: with the file stored on the 5400rpm drive,
> scp it to localhost and write it to the 7200rpm drive. Results were a
little
> below 10MB/sec (CPU near 100% presumably due to encrypting/decrypting on
> the fly).
>
> Any ideas why the 7200rpm drive performs so poorly for remote clients but
> performs wonderfully well when those same operations are performed
locally?
>
> Jimmie
>
> -
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/