linux-kernel - Re: SATA RAID5 speed drop of 100 MB/s

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Sun, 24 Jun 2007 13:59:57 +0100
From:	"Dr. David Alan Gilbert" <linux@...blig.org>
To:	Michael Tokarev <mjt@....msk.ru>
Cc:	Jeff Garzik <jeff@...zik.org>, Carlo Wood <carlo@...noe.com>,
	Tejun Heo <htejun@...il.com>,
	Manoj Kasichainula <manoj@...com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	IDE/ATA development list <linux-ide@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: SATA RAID5 speed drop of 100 MB/s

* Michael Tokarev (mjt@....msk.ru) wrote:

<snip>

> By the way, I did some testing of various drives, and NCQ/TCQ indeed
> shows some difference -- with multiple I/O processes (like "server"
> workload), IF NCQ/TCQ is implemented properly, especially in the
> drive.
> 
> For example, this is a good one:
> 
> Single Seagate 74Gb SCSI drive (10KRPM)
> 
> BlkSz Trd linRd rndRd linWr  rndWr  linR/W     rndR/W

<snip>

> 1024k   1  83.1  36.0  55.8  34.6  28.2/27.6  20.3/19.4
>         2        45.2        44.1             36.4/ 9.9
>         4        48.1        47.6             40.7/ 7.1
> 
> The tests are direct-I/O over whole drive (/dev/sdX), with
> either 1, 2, or 4 threads doing sequential or random reads
> or writes in blocks of a given size.  For the R/W tests,
> we've 2, 4 or 8 threads running in total (1, 2 or 4 readers
> and the same amount of writers).  Numbers are MB/sec, as
> totals (summary) for all threads.
> 
> Especially interesting is the very last column - random R/W
> in parallel.  In almost all cases, more threads gives larger
> total speed (I *guess* it's due to internal optimisations in
> the drive -- with more threads the drive has more chances to
> reorder commands to minimize seek time etc).
> 
> The only thing I don't understand is why with larger I/O block
> size we see write speed drop with multiple threads.

My guess is that something is chopping them up into smaller writes.

> And in contrast to the above, here's another test run, now
> with Seagate SATA ST3250620AS ("desktop" class) 250GB
> 7200RPM drive:
> 
> BlkSz Trd linRd rndRd linWr rndWr   linR/W    rndR/W

<snip>

> 1024k   1  78.4  34.1  33.5  24.6  19.6/19.5  16.0/12.7
>         2        33.3        24.6             15.4/13.8
>         4        34.3        25.0             14.7/15.0
> 

<snip>

> And second, so far I haven't seen a case where a drive
> with NCQ/TCQ enabled works worse than without.  I don't
> want to say there aren't such drives/controllers, but
> it just happen that I haven't seen any.)

Yes you have - the random writes with large blocks and 2 or 4 threads
is significantly better for your non-NCQ drive; and getting more
significant as you add more threads - I'm curious what happens
on 8 threads or more.  

Dave
-- 
 -----Open up your eyes, open up your mind, open up your code -------   
/ Dr. David Alan Gilbert    | Running GNU/Linux on Alpha,68K| Happy  \ 
\ gro.gilbert @ treblig.org | MIPS,x86,ARM,SPARC,PPC & HPPA | In Hex /
 \ _________________________|_____ http://www.treblig.org   |_______/
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/