linux-kernel - Re: Terrible performance of sequential O_DIRECT 4k writes in SAN environment. ~3 times slower then Solars 10 with the same HBA/Storage.

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: <CA+QCeVRiwHU+C5utaLQXf_MpjoYMYEF4LKRyDPaqcd=H6n-RRw@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Tue, 7 Jan 2014 20:37:23 +0200
From:	Sergey Meirovich <rathamahata@...il.com>
To:	Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
Cc:	Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>, linux-scsi <linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Gluk <git.user@...il.com>
Subject: Re: Terrible performance of sequential O_DIRECT 4k writes in SAN
 environment. ~3 times slower then Solars 10 with the same HBA/Storage.

Hi Christoph,

On 7 January 2014 17:58, Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org> wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 06, 2014 at 09:10:32PM +0100, Jan Kara wrote:
>>   This is likely a problem of Linux direct IO implementation. The thing is
>> that in Linux when you are doing appending direct IO (i.e., direct IO which
>> changes file size), the IO is performed synchronously so that we have our
>> life simpler with inode size update etc. (and frankly our current locking
>> rules make inode size update on IO completion almost impossible). Since
>> appending direct IO isn't very common, we seem to get away with this
>> simplification just fine...
>
> Shouldn't be too much of a problem at least for XFS and maybe even ext4
> with the workqueue based I/O end handler.  For XFS we protect size
> updates by the ilock which we already taken in that handler, not sure
> what ext4 would do there.
>

Actually my initial report (14.67Mb/sec  3755.41 Requests/sec) was about ext4
However I have tried XFS as well. It was a bit slower than ext4 on all
occasions.
On the same machine results for XFS were:

    13.97Mb/sec  3576..27 Requests/sec

/dev/mapper/mpathc on /mnt/xfs type xfs (rw,noatime,nodiratime,nobarrier)
--
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/