xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

RE: sunit not working

To: "Salmon, Rene" <Rene.Salmon@xxxxxx>
Subject: RE: sunit not working
From: "Sebastian Brings" <sebas@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2007 21:03:40 +0200
Cc: <xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx>
In-reply-to: <1181760380.8754.53.camel@holwrs01>
References: <1181606134.7873.72.camel@holwrs01> <1181608444.3758.73.camel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <902286657-1181653953-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-1527539029-@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <1181690478.3758.108.camel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <1181760380.8754.53.camel@holwrs01>
Sender: xfs-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx
Thread-index: Acet61PkpKbdWZJYSmaRG7CK+YAdIQAASR8g
Thread-topic: sunit not working
Is 1 GB a reasonable filesize in your environment? And also most user
apps don't use fsync, but maybe I missed somehting. Not knowing your
storage vendor the numbers look pretty good to me, but the way you
tested this is close to a benchmarking environment. 

Cheers

Sebastian

> -----Original Message-----
> From: xfs-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:xfs-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf
Of Salmon, Rene
> Sent: Mittwoch, 13. Juni 2007 20:46
> To: nscott@xxxxxxxxxx; David Chinner
> Cc: salmr0@xxxxxx; xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: sunit not working
> 
> 
> Hi,
> 
> More details on this:
> 
> Using dd with various block sizes to measure write performance only
for
> now.
> 
> This is using two options to dd. The direct I/O option for direct i/o
> and the fsync option for buffered i/o.
> 
> Using direct:
> /usr/bin/time -p dd of=/mnt/testfile if=/dev/zero oflag=direct
> 
> Using fsync:
> /usr/bin/time -p dd of=/mnt/testfile if=/dev/zero conv=fsync
> 
> Using a 2Gbit/sec fiber channel card my theoretical max is 256
> MBytes/sec.  If we allow a bit of overhead for the card driver and
> things the manufacturer claims the card should be able to max out at
> around 200 MBytes/sec.
> 
> The block sizes I used range from 128KBytes - 1024000Kbytes and all
the
> writes generate a 1.0GB file.
> 
> Some of the results I got:
> 
> Buffered I/O(fsync):
> --------------------
> Linux seems to do a good job at buffering this. Regardless of the
block
> size I choose I always get write speeds of around 150MBytes/sec
> 
> Direct I/O(direct):
> -------------------
> The speeds I get here of course are very dependent on the block size I
> choose and how well they align with the stripe size of the storage
array
> underneath. For the appropriate block sizes I get really good
> performance about 200MBytes/sec.
> 
> 
> >From your feedback is sounds like these are reasonable numbers.
> Most of our user apps do not use direct I/O but rather buffered I/O.
Is
> 150MBytes/sec as good as it gets for buffered I/O or is there
something
> I can tune to get a bit more out of buffered I/O?
> 
> Thanks
> Rene
> 
> 
> 
> 
> > >
> > > Thanks that helps.  Now that I know I have the right sunit and
swidth
> > > I have a performace related question.
> > >
> > > If I do a dd on the raw device or to the lun directy I get speeds
of
> > > around 190-200 MBytes/sec.
> > >
> > > As soon as I add xfs on top of the lun my speeds go to around 150
> > > MBytes/sec. This is for a single stream write using various block
> > > sizes on a 2 Gbit/sec fiber channel card.
> > >
> >
> > Reads or writes?
> > What are your I/O sizes?
> > Buffered or direct IO?
> > Including fsync time in there or not?  etc, etc.
> >
> > (Actual dd commands used and their output results would be best)
> > xfs_io is pretty good for this kind of analysis, as it gives very
> > fine grained control of operations performed, has integrated bmap
> > command, etc - use the -F flag for the raw device comparisons).
> >
> > > Is this overhead more or less what you would expect from xfs? Or
is
> > > there some tunning I need to do?
> >
> > You should be able to get very close to raw device speeds esp. for a
> > single stream reader/writer, with some tuning.
> >
> > cheers.
> >
> 



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