public inbox for linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Timothy Miller <miller@techsource.com>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: PROBLEM: Consistently slower 3ware RAID performance under 2.6.4
Date: Mon, 05 Apr 2004 11:14:39 -0400	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <407177DF.2040202@techsource.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20040402154718.43f16ea9.akpm@osdl.org>



Andrew Morton wrote:

> 
> You cannot compare 2.4 and 2.6 kernel write performance with `dd', because
> the kernels are tuned differently.  2.6 kernels are tuned to leave less
> dirty pages in memory than a 2.4 kernel.  Hence when your dd has finished,
> 40% of memory will be dirty (needing writeout) under 2.6, but this figure
> is 60% on 2.4.
> 
> So the 2.6 kernel does more writeout during the dd run and less writeout
> after dd has finished.  The 2.4 kernel does less writeout during the dd run
> and more writeout after dd has finished.
> 
> To compare IO performance you'll need to set 2.6's /proc/sys/vm/dirty_ratio
> to 60 and /proc/sys/vm/dirty_async_ratio to 30.  Or use write-and-fsync
> from http://www.zip.com.au/~akpm/linux/patches/stuff/ext3-tools.tar.gz with
> the `-f' option.
> 
> I don't know why the read bandwidth appears to be lower.  Try increasing
> the readahead with `blockdev --setra'?


That's odd.  I've tried different mem= kernel parameters with no change 
in throughput under 2.4.  That is, 1G vs. 128M vs. 32M all perform the 
same under 2.4 when doing dd to a block device.  On the other hand, 
available RAM makes a HUGE difference when doing dd to a _file_system_.

I haven't tried that under 2.6 yet.

Anyhow, I chose a 1GB test run so as diminish cache effects and file 
system overhead.  Is my logic flawed here?

Thanks.


      reply	other threads:[~2004-04-05 14:54 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 3+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2004-04-02 15:41 PROBLEM: Consistently slower 3ware RAID performance under 2.6.4 Timothy Miller
2004-04-02 23:47 ` Andrew Morton
2004-04-05 15:14   ` Timothy Miller [this message]

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=407177DF.2040202@techsource.com \
    --to=miller@techsource.com \
    --cc=akpm@osdl.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