xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: XFS: Abysmal write performance because of excessive seeking (allocat

To: xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: XFS: Abysmal write performance because of excessive seeking (allocation groups to blame?)
From: Joe Landman <joe.landman@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sat, 07 Apr 2012 13:10:04 -0400
Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:subject:references :in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=10ZNGUj8NJ1eBUGLcQoMwviCpBgWxklxBZdrE+07uzs=; b=iWrc0pUSpvCU7sJ4spzMgrrj/BtjuTrPJlHo72M3RVuLIVmbo2eG4BPvARB92uHF6y gNwCFSVm9wBQ0ioQQ/U5Mg5M/d7WAfN6ZzB48KXABrgUnI+UZZq0s0X2eCITHyrXwNHA ZhY2K+FXgd0TFShH4P8ZOPN54YrFH3q7URk9V5SncjEV3RnjmJdQfkweUVwwZUW31Wx+ 5IpHFCg4SI+o/kebW72xkjAg3G+JEC6ZGtFCVBY3E95yFw7DPP9QbIwo2dR71jJvbEQ5 tBsCBx1ObjZBfMO3v7IUTMNjt6QmY609lF9l+dsE71r3MnMrMlRyh7WgT3pPQDo49lLB /GVQ==
In-reply-to: <20352.28730.273834.568559@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <CAAxjCEwBMbd0x7WQmFELM8JyFu6Kv_b+KDe3XFqJE6shfSAfyQ@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20350.9643.379841.771496@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20350.13616.901974.523140@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <CAAxjCEzkemiYin4KYZX62Ei6QLUFbgZESdwS8krBy0dSqOn6aA@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20352.28730.273834.568559@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:11.0) Gecko/20120329 Thunderbird/11.0.1
On 04/07/2012 12:50 PM, Peter Grandi wrote:

   * Your storage layer does not seem to deliver parallel
     operations: as the ~100MB/s overall 'ext4' speed and the
     seek graphs show, in effect your 4+2 RAID6 performs in this
     case as if it were a single drive with a single arm.

This is what lept out at me. I retried a very similar test (pulled Icedtea 2.1, compiled it, tarred it, measured untar on our boxen). I was getting a fairly consistent 4 +/- delta seconds.

Ignoring the rest of your post for brevity (basically to focus upon this one issue), I suspect that the observed performance issue has more to do with the RAID card, the disks, and the server than the file system.

100MB/s on some supposedly fast drives with a RAID card indicates that either the RAID is badly implemented, the RAID layout is suspect, or similar. He should be getting closer to N(data disks) * BW(single disk) for something "close" to a streaming operation.

This isn't suggesting that he didn't hit some bug which happens to over specify use of ag=0, but he definitely had a weak RAID system (at best).

If he retries with a more capable system, or one with a saner RAID layout (16k chunk size? For spinning rust? Seriously? Short stroking DB layout?), an agcount of 32 or higher, and still sees similar issues, then I'd be more suspicious of a bug.

--
Joseph Landman, Ph.D
Founder and CEO
Scalable Informatics Inc.
email: landman@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
web  : http://scalableinformatics.com
       http://scalableinformatics.com/sicluster
phone: +1 734 786 8423 x121
fax  : +1 866 888 3112
cell : +1 734 612 4615

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