[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20120822160025.272188d1@notabene.brown>
Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2012 16:00:25 +1000
From: NeilBrown <neilb@...e.de>
To: Yuanhan Liu <yuanhan.liu@...ux.intel.com>
Cc: Fengguang Wu <fengguang.wu@...el.com>,
Li Shaohua <shli@...ionio.com>, Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu>,
Marti Raudsepp <marti@...fo.org>,
Kernel hackers <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
ext4 hackers <linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org>, maze@...gle.com,
"Shi, Alex" <alex.shi@...el.com>, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
linux RAID <linux-raid@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: ext4 write performance regression in 3.6-rc1 on RAID0/5
On Wed, 22 Aug 2012 11:57:02 +0800 Yuanhan Liu <yuanhan.liu@...ux.intel.com>
wrote:
>
> -#define NR_STRIPES 256
> +#define NR_STRIPES 1024
Changing one magic number into another magic number might help your case, but
it not really a general solution.
Possibly making sure that max_nr_stripes is at least some multiple of the
chunk size might make sense, but I wouldn't want to see a very large multiple.
I thing the problems with RAID5 are deeper than that. Hopefully I'll figure
out exactly what the best fix is soon - I'm trying to look into it.
I don't think the size of the cache is a big part of the solution. I think
correct scheduling of IO is the real answer.
Thanks,
NeilBrown
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (829 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists