| 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
| ||
|
Date: Tue, 11 Aug 2015 07:28:12 -0700 From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org> To: Jeff Moyer <jmoyer@...hat.com> Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>, Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, dmilburn@...hat.com Subject: Re: [patch] Revert "block: remove artifical max_hw_sectors cap" On Mon, Aug 10, 2015 at 01:23:48PM -0400, Jeff Moyer wrote: > 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? Unfortuntately I don't have access to a large RAID setup at the moment. > 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. Let's settle on that for 4.2 and then look it in more detail. > > Cheers, > Jeff ---end quoted text--- -- 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