From: Sander <sander@humilis.net>
To: "Dr. David Alan Gilbert" <gilbertd@treblig.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, axboe@suse.de
Subject: Re: IO scheduling & filesystem v a few processes writing a lot
Date: Sun, 31 Jul 2005 21:16:12 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20050731191607.GA7186@favonius> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20050731163933.GB7280@gallifrey>
Dr. David Alan Gilbert wrote (ao):
> I've got a backup system that I'm trying to eek some more performance
> out of - and I don't understand the right way to get the kernel to
> do disc writes efficiently - and hence would like some advice.
>
> I was using rsync, but the problem with rsync is that I have
> a back up server then filled with lots and lots of small files
> - I want larger files for spooling to tape.
> (Other suggestions welcome)
Can't you just tar the small files from the backupserver to tape? (or,
what is the problem with that?).
> So I'm trying switching to streaming gzip'd tars from each
> client to backup to the server. I have one server that
> opens connections to each of the clients and sucks the data
> using netcat (now netcat6 in ipv4 mode) and writes it to
> disc, one file per client. Now the downside here
> relative to rsync is that it is going to transfer and
> write a lot more data.
You also do incremental backups?
> Now the clients are on 100Mb/s, and the server on GigE,
> the clients sometime have to think while they gzip their data, so I'd
> like to suck data from multiple clients at once. So I run multiple of
> these netcat's in parallel - currently about 9.
>
> I've benchmarked write performance on the filesystem at
> 60-70MB/s for a single write process (as shown with iostat)
> for a simple dd if=/dev/zero of=abigfile bs=1024k
>
> My problem is that with the parallel writes iostat is showing
> I'm actually getting ~3MB/s write bandwidth - that stinks!
How many parallel streams can the system currently handle before the
write bandwith gets unacceptable?
> The machine is a dual xeon with 1GB of RAM, an intel GigE
> card and a 2.6.11 kernel, a 3ware-9000 series pci-x controller
> with a 1.5TB RAID5 partition running Reiser3.
What mount options? And how many disks?
> Reiser3 is used because I couldn't get ext3 stable on a filesystem of
> this size (-64ZByte free shown in df),
That is not a sign of instability per se AFAIK.
> and xfs didn't seem stable on recovering from an arbitrarily placed
> reset. The 3ware has write caching (with battery backup).
How is the cache configured in the bios?
> I'm open for all suggestions.
Would it be possible to test software raid to see if that gives
different numbers?
Sander
--
Humilis IT Services and Solutions
http://www.humilis.net
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2005-07-31 19:17 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2005-07-31 16:39 IO scheduling & filesystem v a few processes writing a lot Dr. David Alan Gilbert
2005-07-31 19:16 ` Sander [this message]
2005-08-01 8:54 ` Dr. David Alan Gilbert
2005-08-01 14:48 ` Sander
2005-08-02 1:43 ` David Lang
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=20050731191607.GA7186@favonius \
--to=sander@humilis.net \
--cc=axboe@suse.de \
--cc=gilbertd@treblig.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@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