[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20220723105909.440050-1-wangyoua@uniontech.com>
Date: Sat, 23 Jul 2022 18:59:09 +0800
From: Wang You <wangyoua@...ontech.com>
To: bvanassche@....org
Cc: axboe@...nel.dk, fio@...r.kernel.org, hch@....de,
jaegeuk@...nel.org, linux-block@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, ming.lei@...hat.com,
wangxiaohua@...ontech.com, wangyoua@...ontech.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] block/mq-deadline: Prioritize first request
> What is MG04ACA400N?
It is a Toshiba 7200 RPM hard drive.
> The above results are low enough such that these could come from a hard
> disk. However, the test results are hard to interpret since the I/O
> pattern is neither perfectly sequential nor perfectly random (32
> sequential jobs). Please provide separate measurements for sequential
> and random I/O.
> The above results show that this patch makes reading from a hard disk
> slower. Isn't the primary use case of mq-deadline to make reading from
> hard disks faster? So why should these two patches be applied if these
> slow down reading from a hard disk?
The data of MG04ACA400N on the raid controller is obviously different from
the single disk, especially the reading data, I did not expect this situation,
the data on the raid controller made me mistakenly think that the same applies
to HDD.
I will re-analyze the impact of this patch on the HDD later, please ignore it
for now.
Also, can I ask? If using fio or other tools, how should testing be done to get
more accurate and convincing data? Such as the perfectly sequential and random I/O
performance you mentioned above (fio's multi-threaded test does result in neither
perfectly sequential nor perfectly random, but single thread dispatch is too slow,
and cannot play the merge and sorting ability of elv).
Thanks,
Wang.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists