linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 01/11] block: make generic_make

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: <CAF1ivSZpwXiW+DtW2oGEmprLD9+LKqbj99qkFmr8GoJZ5EUxOg@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Thu, 4 Jun 2015 22:21:24 -0700
From:	Ming Lin <mlin@...nel.org>
To:	Mike Snitzer <snitzer@...hat.com>
Cc:	Ming Lei <ming.lei@...onical.com>, dm-devel@...hat.com,
	Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>,
	Alasdair G Kergon <agk@...hat.com>,
	Lars Ellenberg <drbd-dev@...ts.linbit.com>,
	Philip Kelleher <pjk1939@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Joshua Morris <josh.h.morris@...ibm.com>,
	Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
	Kent Overstreet <kent.overstreet@...il.com>,
	Nitin Gupta <ngupta@...are.org>,
	Oleg Drokin <oleg.drokin@...el.com>,
	Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
	Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>,
	Andreas Dilger <andreas.dilger@...el.com>,
	Geoff Levand <geoff@...radead.org>,
	Jiri Kosina <jkosina@...e.cz>,
	lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Jim Paris <jim@...n.com>,
	Minchan Kim <minchan@...nel.org>,
	Dongsu Park <dpark@...teo.net>, drbd-user@...ts.linbit.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 01/11] block: make generic_make_request handle
 arbitrarily sized bios

On Thu, Jun 4, 2015 at 5:06 PM, Mike Snitzer <snitzer@...hat.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 04 2015 at  6:21pm -0400,
> Ming Lin <mlin@...nel.org> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Jun 4, 2015 at 2:06 PM, Mike Snitzer <snitzer@...hat.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > We need to test on large HW raid setups like a Netapp filer (or even
>> > local SAS drives connected via some SAS controller).  Like a 8+2 drive
>> > RAID6 or 8+1 RAID5 setup.  Testing with MD raid on JBOD setups with 8
>> > devices is also useful.  It is larger RAID setups that will be more
>> > sensitive to IO sizes being properly aligned on RAID stripe and/or chunk
>> > size boundaries.
>>
>> I'll test it on large HW raid setup.
>>
>> Here is HW RAID5 setup with 19 278G HDDs on Dell R730xd(2sockets/48
>> logical cpus/264G mem).
>> http://minggr.net/pub/20150604/hw_raid5.jpg
>>
>> The stripe size is 64K.
>>
>> I'm going to test ext4/btrfs/xfs on it.
>> "bs" set to 1216k(64K * 19 = 1216k)
>> and run 48 jobs.
>
> Definitely an odd blocksize (though 1280K full stripe is pretty common
> for 10+2 HW RAID6 w/ 128K chunk size).

I can change it to 10 HDDs HW RAID6 w/ 128K chunk size, then use bs=1280K

>
>> [global]
>> ioengine=libaio
>> iodepth=64
>> direct=1
>> runtime=1800
>> time_based
>> group_reporting
>> numjobs=48
>> rw=read
>>
>> [job1]
>> bs=1216K
>> directory=/mnt
>> size=1G
>
> How does time_based relate to size=1G?  It'll rewrite the same 1 gig
> file repeatedly?

Above job file is for read.
For write, I think so.
Do is make sense for performance test?

>
>> Or do you have other suggestions of what tests I should run?
>
> You're welcome to run this job but I'll also check with others here to
> see what fio jobs we used in the recent past when assessing performance
> of the dm-crypt parallelization changes.

That's very helpful.

>
> Also, a lot of care needs to be taken to eliminate jitter in the system
> while the test is running.  We got a lot of good insight from Bart Van
> Assche on that and put it to practice.  I'll see if we can (re)summarize
> that too.

Very helpful too.

Thanks.

>
> Mike
--
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/