* Evaluation of three I/O schedulers
@ 2003-06-30 14:21 Peter Wong
2003-06-30 15:15 ` Dave Hansen
2003-07-01 6:12 ` Nick Piggin
0 siblings, 2 replies; 3+ messages in thread
From: Peter Wong @ 2003-06-30 14:21 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-kernel; +Cc: Andrew Morton, Mike Sullivan, Bill Hartner, Ray Venditti
We used 2.5.72+mm1 to evaluate three I/O schedulers, namely
anticipatory, deadline and complete fair queueing under a very heavy
database workload on an 8-way Pentium 4 machine. The workload is a
decision support system doing mostly sequential I/O and each run takes
about one hour. All three runs finished completely without encountering
functional problems, and achieved similar performance level.
The 8-way machine has Pentium 4 2.0 GHz processors, 16 GB physical
memory, 2MB L3 cache, 8 FC controllers with 80 disks. Hyperthreading
was turned on for the three runs. The CPU utilization is similar for all
three runs: 65% user, 7% system and 28% idle.
Regards,
Peter
Peter Wai Yee Wong
IBM Linux Technology Center Performance Team
email: wpeter@us.ibm.com
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
* Re: Evaluation of three I/O schedulers
2003-06-30 14:21 Evaluation of three I/O schedulers Peter Wong
@ 2003-06-30 15:15 ` Dave Hansen
2003-07-01 6:12 ` Nick Piggin
1 sibling, 0 replies; 3+ messages in thread
From: Dave Hansen @ 2003-06-30 15:15 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Peter Wong
Cc: Linux Kernel Mailing List, Andrew Morton, Mike Sullivan,
Bill Hartner, Ray Venditti
On Mon, 2003-06-30 at 07:21, Peter Wong wrote:
> The 8-way machine has Pentium 4 2.0 GHz processors, 16 GB physical
> memory, 2MB L3 cache, 8 FC controllers with 80 disks. Hyperthreading
> was turned on for the three runs. The CPU utilization is similar for all
> three runs: 65% user, 7% system and 28% idle.
Could you give us an idea of how greatly utilized your 10 fiber
controllers are? What about memory? Would a larger readahead be
beneficial?
--
Dave Hansen
haveblue@us.ibm.com
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
* Re: Evaluation of three I/O schedulers
2003-06-30 14:21 Evaluation of three I/O schedulers Peter Wong
2003-06-30 15:15 ` Dave Hansen
@ 2003-07-01 6:12 ` Nick Piggin
1 sibling, 0 replies; 3+ messages in thread
From: Nick Piggin @ 2003-07-01 6:12 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Peter Wong
Cc: linux-kernel, Andrew Morton, Mike Sullivan, Bill Hartner,
Ray Venditti
Peter Wong wrote:
>We used 2.5.72+mm1 to evaluate three I/O schedulers, namely
>anticipatory, deadline and complete fair queueing under a very heavy
>database workload on an 8-way Pentium 4 machine. The workload is a
>decision support system doing mostly sequential I/O and each run takes
>about one hour. All three runs finished completely without encountering
>functional problems, and achieved similar performance level.
>
>The 8-way machine has Pentium 4 2.0 GHz processors, 16 GB physical
>memory, 2MB L3 cache, 8 FC controllers with 80 disks. Hyperthreading
>was turned on for the three runs. The CPU utilization is similar for all
>three runs: 65% user, 7% system and 28% idle.
>
Hi Peter,
How many block devices are being used at once in your tests?
I would be interested to see profiles of AS and DL if possible.
Thanks.
Nick
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2003-07-01 5:58 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2003-06-30 14:21 Evaluation of three I/O schedulers Peter Wong
2003-06-30 15:15 ` Dave Hansen
2003-07-01 6:12 ` Nick Piggin
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox