[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20111215010010.GA14805@localhost>
Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2011 09:00:10 +0800
From: Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@...el.com>
To: "Li, Shaohua" <shaohua.li@...el.com>
Cc: Ted Ts'o <tytso@....edu>,
"linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org" <linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org>,
Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
NeilBrown <neilb@...e.de>, linux-raid@...r.kernel.org,
Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>
Subject: Re: ext4 data=writeback performs worse than data=ordered now
> I found sometimes one disk hasn't any request inflight, but we can't
> send request to the disk, because the scsi host's resource (the queue
> depth) is used out, looks we send too many requests from other disks and
> leave some disks starved. The resource imbalance in scsi isn't a new
> problem, even 3.1 has such issue, so I'd think writeback introduces new
> imbalance between the 12 disks. In fact, if I limit disk's queue depth
> to 10, in this way the 12 disks will not impact each other in scsi
> layer, the performance regression fully disappears for both writeback
> and order mode.
I observe similar issue in MD. The default
q->nr_requests = BLKDEV_MAX_RQ;
is too small for large arrays, and I end up doing
echo 1280 > /sys/block/md0/queue/nr_requests
in my tests.
Thanks,
Fengguang
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists