Re: Where is the performance bottleneck?
From: jmerkey <hidden>
Date: 2005-08-31 17:02:10
Also in:
lkml
I'll try this approach as well. On 2.4.X kernels, I had to change nr_requests to achieve performance, but I noticed it didn't seem to work as well on 2.6.X. I'll retry the change with nr_requests on 2.6.X. Thanks Jeff Tom Callahan wrote:
quoted
From linux-kernel mailing list.....Don't do this. BLKDEV_MIN_RQ sets the size of the mempool reserved requests and will only get slightly used in low memory conditions, so most memory will probably be wasted..... Change /sys/block/xxx/queue/nr_requests Tom Callahan TESSCO Technologies (443)-506-6216 callahant@tessco.com jmerkey wrote:quoted
I have seen an 80GB/sec limitation in the kernel unless this value is changed in the SCSI I/O layer for 3Ware and other controllers during testing of 2.6.X series kernels. Change these values in include/linux/blkdev.h and performance goes from 80MB/S to over 670MB/S on the 3Ware controller. //#define BLKDEV_MIN_RQ 4 //#define BLKDEV_MAX_RQ 128 /* Default maximum */ #define BLKDEV_MIN_RQ 4096 #define BLKDEV_MAX_RQ 8192 /* Default maximum */ Jeff Jens Axboe wrote:quoted
On Wed, Aug 31 2005, Holger Kiehl wrote:quoted
On Wed, 31 Aug 2005, Jens Axboe wrote:quoted
Nothing sticks out here either. There's plenty of idle time. Itsmellsquoted
quoted
quoted
like a driver issue. Can you try the same dd test, but read from the drives instead? Use a bigger blocksize here, 128 or 256k.I used the following command reading from all 8 disks in parallel: dd if=/dev/sd?1 of=/dev/null bs=256k count=78125 Here vmstat output (I just cut something out in the middle): procs -----------memory---------- ---swap-- -----io---- --system-- ----cpu----^M r b swpd free buff cache si so bi bo in cs ussy idquoted
quoted
wa^M 3 7 4348 42640 7799984 9612 0 0 322816 0 3532 49870 22quoted
quoted
0 78 1 7 4348 42136 7800624 9584 0 0 322176 0 3526 49870 23quoted
quoted
4 74 0 8 4348 39912 7802648 9668 0 0 322176 0 3525 49550 22quoted
quoted
12 66 1 7 4348 38912 7803700 9636 0 0 322432 0 3526 50780 23quoted
quoted
Ok, so that's somewhat better than the writes but still off from what the individual drives can do in total.quoted
quoted
You might want to try the same with direct io, just to eliminate the costly user copy. I don't expect it to make much of a differencethough,quoted
quoted
quoted
feels like the problem is elsewhere (driver, most likely).Sorry, I don't know how to do this. Do you mean using a C program that sets some flag to do direct io, or how can I do that?I've attached a little sample for you, just run ala # ./oread /dev/sdX and it will read 128k chunks direct from that device. Run on the same drives as above, reply with the vmstat info again. ------------------------------------------------------------------------quoted
#include <stdio.h> #include <stdlib.h> #define __USE_GNU #include <fcntl.h> #include <stdlib.h> #include <unistd.h> #define BS (131072) #define ALIGN(buf) (char *) (((unsigned long) (buf) + 4095) &~(4095))quoted
#define BLOCKS (8192) int main(int argc, char *argv[]) { char *p; int fd, i; if (argc < 2) { printf("%s: <dev>\n", argv[0]); return 1; } fd = open(argv[1], O_RDONLY | O_DIRECT); if (fd == -1) { perror("open"); return 1; } p = ALIGN(malloc(BS + 4095)); for (i = 0; i < BLOCKS; i++) { int r = read(fd, p, BS); if (r == BS) continue; else { if (r == -1) perror("read"); break; } } return 0; }- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-raid" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html- 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/