linux-kernel - Re: Linux 2.6.29

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]

Message-ID: <49CA6D09.1020401@krogh.cc>
Date:	Wed, 25 Mar 2009 18:42:33 +0100
From:	Jesper Krogh <jesper@...gh.cc>
To:	David Rees <drees76@...il.com>
CC:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Linux 2.6.29

David Rees wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 12:32 AM, Jesper Krogh <jesper@...gh.cc> wrote:
>> David Rees wrote:
>> The 480 secondes is not the "wait time" but the time gone before the
>> message is printed. It the kernel-default it was earlier 120 seconds but
>> thats changed by Ingo Molnar back in september. I do get a lot of less
>> noise but it really doesn't tell anything about the nature of the problem.
>>
>> The systes spec:
>> 32GB of memory. The disks are a Nexsan SataBeast with 42 SATA drives in
>> Raid10 connected using 4Gbit fibre-channel. I'll let it up to you to decide
>> if thats fast or slow?
> 
> The drives should be fast enough to saturate 4Gbit FC in streaming
> writes.  How fast is the array in practice?

Thats allways a good question.. This is by far not being the only user
of the array at the time of testing.. (there are 4 FC-channel connected 
to a switch). Creating a fresh slice.. and just dd'ing onto it from 
/dev/zero gives:
jk@...t:~$ sudo dd if=/dev/zero of=/dev/sdh bs=1M count=10000
10000+0 records in
10000+0 records out
10485760000 bytes (10 GB) copied, 78.0557 s, 134 MB/s
jk@...t:~$ sudo dd if=/dev/zero of=/dev/sdh bs=1M count=1000
1000+0 records in
1000+0 records out
1048576000 bytes (1.0 GB) copied, 8.11019 s, 129 MB/s

Watching using dstat while dd'ing it peaks at 220M/s

If I watch numbers on "dstat" output in production. It gets at peak
around the same(130MB/s) but average is in the 90-100 MB/s range.

It has 2GB of battery backed cache. I'm fairly sure that when it was new 
(and I only had connected one host) I could get it up at around 350MB/s.

>> The strange thing is actually that the above process (updatedb.mlocate) is
>> writing to / which is a device without any activity at all. All activity is
>> on the Fibre Channel device above, but process writing outsid that seems to
>> be effected as well.
> 
> Ah.  Sounds like your setup would benefit immensely from the per-bdi
> patches from Jens Axobe.  I'm sure he would appreciate some feedback
> from users like you on them.
> 
>>> What's your vm.dirty_background_ratio and
>>>
>>> vm.dirty_ratio set to?
>> 2.6.29-rc8 defaults:
>> jk@...t:/proc/sys/vm$ cat dirty_background_ratio
>> 5
>> jk@...t:/proc/sys/vm$ cat dirty_ratio
>> 10
> 
> On a 32GB system that's 1.6GB of dirty data, but your array should be
> able to write that out fairly quickly (in a couple seconds) as long as
> it's not too random.  If it's spread all over the disk, write
> throughput will drop significantly - how fast is data being written to
> disk when your system suffers from large write latency?

Thats another thing. I havent been debugging while hitting it (yet) but 
if I go ind and do a sync on the system manually. Then it doesn't get 
above 50MB/s in writeout (measured using dstat). But even that doesn't 
sum up to 8 minutes .. 1.6GB at 50MB/s ..=> 32 s.

-- 
Jesper

--
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/