linux-kernel - Re: [RESEND] [PATCH] readahead:add blk_run_backing

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: <a0272b440907160754j3545f4dby13882ea1ab964222@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Thu, 16 Jul 2009 16:54:44 +0200
From:	Ronald Moesbergen <intercommit@...il.com>
To:	Vladislav Bolkhovitin <vst@...b.net>
Cc:	fengguang.wu@...el.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	akpm@...ux-foundation.org, kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com,
	Alan.Brunelle@...com, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
	jens.axboe@...cle.com, randy.dunlap@...cle.com,
	Bart Van Assche <bart.vanassche@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [RESEND] [PATCH] readahead:add blk_run_backing_dev

2009/7/16 Vladislav Bolkhovitin <vst@...b.net>:
>
> Ronald Moesbergen, on 07/16/2009 11:32 AM wrote:
>>
>> 2009/7/15 Vladislav Bolkhovitin <vst@...b.net>:
>>>>
>>>> The drop with 64 max_sectors_kb on the client is a consequence of how
>>>> CFQ
>>>> is working. I can't find the exact code responsible for this, but from
>>>> all
>>>> signs, CFQ stops delaying requests if amount of outstanding requests
>>>> exceeds
>>>> some threshold, which is 2 or 3. With 64 max_sectors_kb and 5 SCST I/O
>>>> threads this threshold is exceeded, so CFQ doesn't recover order of
>>>> requests, hence the performance drop. With default 512 max_sectors_kb
>>>> and
>>>> 128K RA the server sees at max 2 requests at time.
>>>>
>>>> Ronald, can you perform the same tests with 1 and 2 SCST I/O threads,
>>>> please?
>>
>> Ok. Should I still use the file-on-xfs testcase for this, or should I
>> go back to using a regular block device?
>
> Yes, please

As in: Yes, go back to block device, or Yes use file-on-xfs?

>> The file-over-iscsi is quite
>> uncommon I suppose, most people will export a block device over iscsi,
>> not a file.
>
> No, files are common. The main reason why people use direct block devices is
> a not supported by anything believe that comparing with files they "have
> less overhead", so "should be faster". But it isn't true and can be easily
> checked.

Well, there are other advantages of using a block device: they are
generally more manageble, for instance you can use LVM for resizing
instead of strange dd magic to extend a file. When using a file you
have to extend the volume that holds the file first, and then the file
itself. And you don't lose disk space to filesystem metadata twice.
Also, I still don't get why reads/writes from a blockdevice are
different in speed than reads/writes from a file on a filesystem. I
for one will not be using files exported over iscsi, but blockdevices
(LVM volumes).

Ronald.
--
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/