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.
prev parent 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