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]

Message-ID: <20100224041822.GB27459@localhost>
Date:	Wed, 24 Feb 2010 12:18:22 +0800
From:	Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@...el.com>
To:	Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>
Cc:	Trond Myklebust <Trond.Myklebust@...app.com>,
	"linux-nfs@...r.kernel.org" <linux-nfs@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-fsdevel@...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 11:29:34AM +0800, Dave Chinner wrote:
> 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

It does not involve disk IO at least. (The sparse file dataset is
larger than server cache.)

> 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....

Sure the result will be different when disk IO is involved.
In this case I would expect the server admin to setup the optimal
readahead size for the disk(s).

It sounds silly to have

        client_readahead_size > server_readahead_size

Thanks,
Fengguang
--
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/