From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S964903AbVHaRcQ (ORCPT ); Wed, 31 Aug 2005 13:32:16 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S964899AbVHaRcQ (ORCPT ); Wed, 31 Aug 2005 13:32:16 -0400 Received: from ns.virtualhost.dk ([195.184.98.160]:45245 "EHLO virtualhost.dk") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S964897AbVHaRcP (ORCPT ); Wed, 31 Aug 2005 13:32:15 -0400 Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2005 19:32:21 +0200 From: Jens Axboe To: jmerkey Cc: Holger Kiehl , Vojtech Pavlik , linux-raid , linux-kernel Subject: Re: Where is the performance bottleneck? Message-ID: <20050831173219.GI4018@suse.de> References: <20050831071126.GA7502@midnight.ucw.cz> <20050831072644.GF4018@suse.de> <20050831120714.GT4018@suse.de> <20050831162053.GG4018@suse.de> <4315C9EB.2030506@utah-nac.org> <20050831171124.GH4018@suse.de> <4315D3EB.4000601@utah-nac.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4315D3EB.4000601@utah-nac.org> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Aug 31 2005, jmerkey wrote: > > 512 is not enough. It has to be larger. I just tried 512 and it still > limits the data rates. Please don't top post. 512 wasn't the point, setting it properly is the point. If you need more than 512, go ahead. This isn't Holger's problem, though, the reading would be much faster if it was. If the fusion is using a large queue depth, increasing nr_requests would likely help the writes (but not to the extent of where it would suddenly be as fast as it should). -- Jens Axboe