xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Slow read performance

To: Jason Howard <jason@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: Slow read performance
From: Nathan Scott <nathans@xxxxxxx>
Date: Sat, 21 Aug 2004 07:28:05 +1000
Cc: linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <200408201342.53409.jason@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; from jason@xxxxxxxxxxxxx on Fri, Aug 20, 2004 at 01:42:53PM -0700
References: <200408201342.53409.jason@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: linux-xfs-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx
User-agent: Mutt/1.2.5i
On Fri, Aug 20, 2004 at 01:42:53PM -0700, Jason Howard wrote:
> Hello All,

hi there,

> I am wondering if anyone can offer any insight into a problem I have been 
> seeing with XFS included in the 2.4.27 kernel.  I am seeing a huge difference 
> between a raw device (/dev/md0) read and a filesystem read when reading from 
> an array that is capable of >500 MBytes/sec.  The reads and writes are 
> sequential, both on the raw disk device and XFS filesystem (using sequential 
> files).

Buffered or direct reads?  (could you try both?)

Is this MD RAID5?  (if so, could you send xfs_info output for this
filesystem as well?)

> Here is an example of what we normally see on a fairly slow array:
> RAW PERFORMANCE
> Read Average : 212.674 MB/SEC over 1000 frames
> Write Average: 234.769 MB/SEC over 1000 frames
> FS PERFORMANCE
> Read Average : 148.125 MB/SEC over 1000 frames
> Write Average: 286.031 MB/SEC over 1000 frames
> 
> Now here is the problem I am seeing on a fast array:
> RAW PERFORMANCE
> Read Average : 594.965 MB/SEC over 1000 frames
> Write Average: 350.604 MB/SEC over 1000 frames
> FS PERFORMANCE
> Read Average : 67.280 MB/SEC over 1000 frames
> Write Average: 305.363 MB/SEC over 1000 frames
> 
> I have seen similar results on two separate arrays, one a software raid of 
> dual U320 arrays, the other is a software raid of dual 2G fibre w/ 16 disks.  
> I don't suspect it is a problem with the physical interfaces, as I am seeing 
> the same issue on multiple technologies.  Also, I have pretty much ruled out 
> a problem with Linux software raid as we are getting expected performance 
> from the raw /dev/md0 device.  That is not to say that it couldn't very well 
> be a nasty interaction between software raid and XFS.

If it is a RAID5 device, make sure your filesystem sector and
block sizes are the same (both are mkfs.xfs options).

Otherwise, not sure... could be a readahead oddity if this is
buffered IO.  As another data point, what do the ext2 numbers
look like?  (this will point to an XFS-specific problem, or a
more generic - eg. readahead - type of problem).

cheers.

-- 
Nathan


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>