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/
>>
>>
>
next prev parent 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