public inbox for linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Max Waterman <davidmaxwaterman+kernel@fastmail.co.uk>
To: Phillip Susi <psusi@cfl.rr.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: io performance...
Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2006 15:24:19 +0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <43CDED23.5060701@fastmail.co.uk> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <43CD2405.4070902@cfl.rr.com>

Phillip Susi wrote:
> Did you direct the program to use O_DIRECT?

I'm just using the s/w (iorate/bonnie++) with default options - I'm no 
expert. I could try though.

> If not then I believe the 
> problem you are seeing is that the generic block layer is not performing 
> large enough readahead to keep all the disks in the array reading at 
> once, because the stripe width is rather large.  What stripe factor did 
> you format the array using?

I left the stripe size at the default, which, I believe, is 64K bytes; 
same as your fakeraid below.

I did play with 'blockdev --setra' too.

I noticed it was 256 with a single disk, and, with s/w raid, it 
increased by 256 for each extra disk in the array. IE for the raid 0 
array with 4 drives, it was 1024.

With h/w raid, however, it did not increase when I added disks. Should I 
use 'blockdev --setra 320' (ie 64 x 5 = 320, since we're now running 
RAID5 on 5 drives)?

> I have a sata fakeraid at home of two drives using a stripe factor of 64 
> KB.  If I don't issue O_DIRECT IO requests of at least 128 KB ( the 
> stripe width ), then throughput drops significantly.  If I issue 
> multiple async requests of smaller size that totals at least 128 KB, 
> throughput also remains high.  If you only issue a single 32 KB request 
> at a time, then two requests must go to one drive and be completed 
> before the other drive gets any requests, so it remains idle a lot of 
> the time.

I think that makes sense (which is a change in this RAID performance 
business :( ).

Thanks.

Max.

> Max Waterman wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I've been referred to this list from the linux-raid list.
>>
>> I've been playing with a RAID system, trying to obtain best bandwidth
>> from it.
>>
>> I've noticed that I consistently get better (read) numbers from kernel 
>> 2.6.8
>> than from later kernels.
>>
>> For example, I get 135MB/s on 2.6.8, but I typically get ~90MB/s on later
>> kernels.
>>
>> I'm using this :
>>
>> <http://www.sharcnet.ca/~hahn/iorate.c>
>>
>> to measure the iorate. I'm using the debian distribution. The h/w is a 
>> MegaRAID
>> 320-2. The array I'm measuring is a RAID0 of 4 Fujitsu Max3073NC 
>> 15Krpm drives.
>>
>> The later kernels I've been using are :
>>
>> 2.6.12-1-686-smp
>> 2.6.14-2-686-smp
>> 2.6.15-1-686-smp
>>
>> The kernel which gives us the best results is :
>>
>> 2.6.8-2-386
>>
>> (note that it's not an smp kernel)
>>
>> I'm testing on an otherwise idle system.
>>
>> Any ideas to why this might be? Any other advice/help?
>>
>> Thanks!
>>
>> Max.
>> -
>> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe 
>> linux-kernel" in
>> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
>> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
>> Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/
>>
>>
> 


  reply	other threads:[~2006-01-18  7:24 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 30+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2006-01-16  7:35 io performance Max Waterman
2006-01-16  7:32 ` Jeff V. Merkey
2006-01-17 13:57   ` Jens Axboe
2006-01-17 19:17     ` Jeff V. Merkey
2006-01-16  8:35 ` Pekka Enberg
2006-01-17 17:06 ` Phillip Susi
2006-01-18  7:24   ` Max Waterman [this message]
2006-01-18 15:19     ` Phillip Susi
2006-01-20  5:58       ` Max Waterman
2006-01-20 13:42         ` Ian Soboroff
2006-01-25  6:36           ` Max Waterman
2006-01-25 14:19             ` Ian Soboroff
2006-01-25 13:09           ` Bernd Eckenfels
2006-01-18  3:02 ` Max Waterman
2006-01-18  4:30   ` Jeff V. Merkey
2006-01-18  5:09     ` Max Waterman
2006-01-18  4:37       ` Jeff V. Merkey
2006-01-18  7:06         ` Max Waterman
2006-01-18  9:21     ` Alan Cox
2006-01-18 15:48       ` Phillip Susi
2006-01-18 16:25         ` Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz
2006-01-19  0:48 ` Adrian Bunk
2006-01-19 13:18   ` Max Waterman
     [not found] <5vx8f-1Al-21@gated-at.bofh.it>
     [not found] ` <5wbRY-3cF-3@gated-at.bofh.it>
     [not found]   ` <5wdKh-5wF-15@gated-at.bofh.it>
2006-01-19  1:58     ` Robert Hancock
2006-01-19 13:14       ` Max Waterman
2006-01-19 14:08         ` Alan Cox
2006-01-20  4:09           ` Max Waterman
2006-01-20  4:27             ` Alexander Samad
2006-01-20 12:52             ` Alan Cox
  -- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2006-01-19 11:39 Al Boldi

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=43CDED23.5060701@fastmail.co.uk \
    --to=davidmaxwaterman+kernel@fastmail.co.uk \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=psusi@cfl.rr.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