[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <x49k4z72yop.fsf@segfault.boston.devel.redhat.com>
Date: Wed, 07 Oct 2009 08:09:10 -0400
From: Jeff Moyer <jmoyer@...hat.com>
To: Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@...cle.com>
Cc: zach.brown@...cle.com, linux-aio <linux-aio@...ck.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [patch v4 0/3] aio: implement request batching [more performance numbers]
Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@...cle.com> writes:
> So here's a pretty basic test. It does random reads from a bunch of
> devices, I tested both 4kb and 64kb block sizes. Queue depth used is 32
> for both cases, but note that this test uses a thread per device (so the
> queue depth is 32 per device). Results are averaged over 3 runs.
> slat/clat are the submission and completion latencies, they are in
> microseconds here.
>
> 4kb random reads
>
> kernel sys IOPS slat clat
> ----------------------------------------------------
> 2.6.32-rc3+patch 25.8% 192500 7.9 2606
> 2.6.32-rc3 27.4% 191300 8.4 2612
>
>
>
> 64kb random reads
>
> kernel sys IOPS slat clat
> ----------------------------------------------------
> 2.6.32-rc3+patch 2.5% 24590 9.7 9681
> 2.6.32-rc3 2.5% 24580 9.4 9691
>
> So pretty close, nothing earth shattering here. What the results above
> do not show is that the 4kb test runs very stable with your patch.
> Mainline fluctuates somewhat in the bandwidth, most likely due to the
> varying depth.
OK, good news. Thanks for testing!
Cheers,
Jeff
--
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists