linux-kernel - Re: [RFC] nfs: use 2*rsize readahead size

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:	Wed, 24 Feb 2010 14:29:34 +1100
From:	Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>
To:	Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@...el.com>
Cc:	Trond Myklebust <Trond.Myklebust@...app.com>,
	linux-nfs@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
	Linux Memory Management List <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC] nfs: use 2*rsize readahead size

On Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 10:41:01AM +0800, Wu Fengguang wrote:
> With default rsize=512k and NFS_MAX_READAHEAD=15, the current NFS
> readahead size 512k*15=7680k is too large than necessary for typical
> clients.
> 
> On a e1000e--e1000e connection, I got the following numbers
> 
> 	readahead size		throughput
> 		   16k           35.5 MB/s
> 		   32k           54.3 MB/s
> 		   64k           64.1 MB/s
> 		  128k           70.5 MB/s
> 		  256k           74.6 MB/s
> rsize ==>	  512k           77.4 MB/s
> 		 1024k           85.5 MB/s
> 		 2048k           86.8 MB/s
> 		 4096k           87.9 MB/s
> 		 8192k           89.0 MB/s
> 		16384k           87.7 MB/s
> 
> So it seems that readahead_size=2*rsize (ie. keep two RPC requests in flight)
> can already get near full NFS bandwidth.
> 
> The test script is:
> 
> #!/bin/sh
> 
> file=/mnt/sparse
> BDI=0:15
> 
> for rasize in 16 32 64 128 256 512 1024 2048 4096 8192 16384
> do
> 	echo 3 > /proc/sys/vm/drop_caches
> 	echo $rasize > /sys/devices/virtual/bdi/$BDI/read_ahead_kb
> 	echo readahead_size=${rasize}k
> 	dd if=$file of=/dev/null bs=4k count=1024000
> done

That's doing a cached read out of the server cache, right? You
might find the results are different if the server has to read the
file from disk. I would expect reads from the server cache not
to require much readahead as there is no IO latency on the server
side for the readahead to hide....

Cheers,

Dave.
-- 
Dave Chinner
david@...morbit.com
--
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/