xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Performance problem - reads slower than writes

To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: Performance problem - reads slower than writes
From: Brian Candler <B.Candler@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 3 Feb 2012 21:17:41 +0000
Cc: Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=pobox.com; h=date:from:to :cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version:content-type :in-reply-to; s=sasl; bh=WTSd5Zpd5L7FXLx73HCNfnTxZGY=; b=tGFAIt5 z2Hzji4RztFNWa4UmfCLDM/hjnOjtqLAhs/Uu9lC1EQkv61MB+FpYPiBf9bDhcDP hPtz95VTTqBsbtTWH18zJDxn3tRT2e4Aabu5A/5qRyqQeMDeqULtcsr0o/UvQ3O7 IMzM9kiPyhi2NnqeoLAHzuKHPACBHec3tGDQ=
Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=pobox.com; h=date:from:to:cc :subject:message-id:references:mime-version:content-type :in-reply-to; q=dns; s=sasl; b=YHnJ8T9857H/Bgmq3g5xwd+7YbQSVuf6o 7SLq7aLy4RoP7d83TFUIMmNBA5eFPWZxne7bqEq6NBn1q+AH6ctVQ4TkzGkw/SD7 rFzak1QT9ge7lPOp9HDF9iHltlju9FSRrn08LWkojT2iVdROqnG8lH6ZOYCeE5H2 9tpTKv5hKM=
In-reply-to: <20120203210114.GD2479@xxxxxxxx>
References: <20120130220019.GA45782@xxxxxxxx> <20120131020508.GF9090@dastard> <20120131103126.GA46170@xxxxxxxx> <20120131141604.GB46571@xxxxxxxx> <20120131202526.GJ9090@dastard> <20120203184723.GA2261@xxxxxxxx> <20120203190304.GA11809@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20120203210114.GD2479@xxxxxxxx>
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
On Fri, Feb 03, 2012 at 09:01:14PM +0000, Brian Candler wrote:
> I created a fresh filesystem (/dev/sdh), default parameters, but mounted it
> with inode64.  Then I tar'd across my corpus of 100K files.  Result: files
> are located close to the directories they belong to, and read performance
> zooms.

Although perversely, keeping all the inodes at one end of the disk does
increase throughput with random reads, and also under high concurrency loads
(for this corpus of ~65GB anyway, maybe not true for a full disk)

-- original results: defaults without inode64 --

 #p  files/sec  dd_args
  1      43.57  bs=1024k
  1      43.29  bs=1024k [random]
  2      51.27  bs=1024k 
  2      48.17  bs=1024k [random]
  5      69.06  bs=1024k 
  5      63.41  bs=1024k [random]
 10      83.77  bs=1024k 
 10      77.28  bs=1024k [random]

-- defaults with inode64 --

 #p  files/sec  dd_args
  1     138.20  bs=1024k 
  1      30.32  bs=1024k [random]
  2      70.48  bs=1024k 
  2      27.25  bs=1024k [random]
  5      61.21  bs=1024k 
  5      35.42  bs=1024k [random]
 10      80.39  bs=1024k 
 10      45.17  bs=1024k [random]

Additionally, I see a noticeable boost in random read performance when using
-i size=1024 in conjunction with inode64, which I'd also like to understand:

-- inode64 *and* -i size=1024 --

 #p  files/sec  dd_args
  1     141.52  bs=1024k 
  1      38.95  bs=1024k [random]
  2      67.28  bs=1024k 
  2      42.15  bs=1024k [random]
  5      79.83  bs=1024k 
  5      57.76  bs=1024k [random]
 10      86.85  bs=1024k
 10      72.45  bs=1024k [random]

Regards,

Brian.

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