[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <x49bnefrra3.fsf@segfault.boston.devel.redhat.com>
Date: Mon, 10 Aug 2015 13:23:48 -0400
From: Jeff Moyer <jmoyer@...hat.com>
To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
Cc: Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
dmilburn@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [patch] Revert "block: remove artifical max_hw_sectors cap"
Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org> writes:
> Hi Jeff,
>
> thanks for the detailed numbers!
>
> The bigger I/O size makes a drastic impact for Linux software RAID
> setups, for which this was a driver. For the RAID5/6 over SATA disks
> setups that I was benchmarking this it gives between 20 and 40% better
> sequential read and write numbers.
Hi, Christoph,
Unfortunately, I'm unable to reproduce your results (though my test
setup uses SAS disks, not SATA). I tried with a 10 data disk md RAID5,
with 32k and 128k chunk sizes. I modified the fio program to read/write
multiples of the stripe width, and I also used aio-stress over a range
of queue depth and I/O sizes for read, write, random read and random
write. I didn't see any measurable performance difference. Do you
still have access to your test setup?
What do you think about reinstituting the artificial max_sectors_kb cap,
but bumping the default up from 512KB to 1280KB? I had our performance
team run numbers on their test setup (which is a 12 disk raid0 with 32k
chunk size, fwiw) with max_sectors_kb set to 1280 and, aside from one
odd data point, things looked good.
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