From: mgross <mgross@unix-os.sc.intel.com>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@zip.com.au>
Cc: "Griffiths, Richard A" <richard.a.griffiths@intel.com>,
"'Jens Axboe'" <axboe@suse.de>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
lse-tech@lists.sourceforge.net
Subject: Re: ext3 performance bottleneck as the number of spindles gets large
Date: Fri, 21 Jun 2002 11:46:18 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <3D13747A.3030804@unix-os.sc.intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: 3D12DCB4.872269F6@zip.com.au
Andrew Morton wrote:
>"Griffiths, Richard A" wrote:
>
>>I should have mentioned the throughput we saw on 4 adapters 6 drives was
>>126KB/s. The max theoretical bus bandwith is 640MB/s.
>>
>
>I hope that was 128MB/s?
>
Yes that was MB/s, the data was taken in KB a set of 3 zeros where missing.
>
>
>Please try the below patch (againt 2.4.19-pre10). It halves the lock
>contention, and it does that by making the fs twice as efficient, so
>that's a bonus.
>
We'll give it a try. I'm on travel right now so it may be a few days if
Richard doesn't get to before I get back.
>
>
>I wouldn't be surprised if it made no difference. I'm not seeing
>much difference between ext2 and ext3 here.
>
>If you have time, please test ext2 and/or reiserfs and/or ext3
>in writeback mode.
>
Soon after we finish beating the ext3 file system up I'll take a swing
at some other file systems.
>
>And please tell us some more details regarding the performance bottleneck.
>I assume that you mean that the IO rate per disk slows as more
>disks are added to an adapter? Or does the total throughput through
>the adapter fall as more disks are added?
>
No, the IO block write throughput for the system goes down as drives are
added under this work load. We measure the system throughput not the
per drive throughput, but one could infer the per drive throughput by
dividing.
Running bonnie++ on with 300MB files doing 8Kb sequential writes we get
the following system wide throughput as a function of the number of
drives attached and by number of addapters.
One addapter
1 drive per addapter 127,702KB/Sec
2 drives per addapter 93,283 KB/Sec
6 drives per addapter 85,626 KB/Sec
2 addapters
1 drive per addapter 92,095 KB/Sec
2 drives per addapter 110,956 KB/Sec
6 drives per addapter 106,883 KB/Sec
4 addapters
1 drive per addapter 121,125 KB/Sec
2 drives per addapter 117,575 KB/Sec
6 drives per addapter 116,570 KB/Sec
Not too pritty.
--mgross
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2002-06-21 18:42 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 25+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2002-06-20 21:50 ext3 performance bottleneck as the number of spindles gets la rge Griffiths, Richard A
2002-06-21 7:58 ` ext3 performance bottleneck as the number of spindles gets large Andrew Morton
2002-06-21 18:46 ` mgross [this message]
2002-06-21 19:26 ` Chris Mason
2002-06-21 19:56 ` Andrew Morton
2002-06-23 4:02 ` Christopher E. Brown
2002-06-23 4:33 ` Andreas Dilger
2002-06-23 6:00 ` Christopher E. Brown
2002-06-23 6:35 ` [Lse-tech] " William Lee Irwin III
2002-06-23 7:29 ` Dave Hansen
2002-06-23 7:36 ` William Lee Irwin III
2002-06-23 7:45 ` Dave Hansen
2002-06-23 7:55 ` Christopher E. Brown
2002-06-23 8:11 ` David Lang
2002-06-23 8:31 ` Dave Hansen
2002-06-23 16:21 ` Martin J. Bligh
2002-06-23 17:06 ` Eric W. Biederman
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2002-06-20 15:26 ext3 performance bottleneck as the number of spindles gets la rge Griffiths, Richard A
2002-06-20 20:18 ` ext3 performance bottleneck as the number of spindles gets large Andrew Morton
2002-06-20 18:08 ` mgross
2002-06-20 21:25 ` Andrew Morton
2002-06-19 21:29 mgross
2002-06-20 0:54 ` Andrew Morton
2002-06-20 9:54 ` Stephen C. Tweedie
2002-06-20 1:55 ` Andrew Morton
2002-06-20 6:05 ` Jens Axboe
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=3D13747A.3030804@unix-os.sc.intel.com \
--to=mgross@unix-os.sc.intel.com \
--cc=akpm@zip.com.au \
--cc=axboe@suse.de \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=lse-tech@lists.sourceforge.net \
--cc=richard.a.griffiths@intel.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