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: Stan Hoeppner <stan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 09 Apr 2012 00:27:29 -0500
In-reply-to: <20120408234555.695e291f@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <CAAxjCEwBMbd0x7WQmFELM8JyFu6Kv_b+KDe3XFqJE6shfSAfyQ@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20350.9643.379841.771496@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20350.13616.901974.523140@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <CAAxjCEzkemiYin4KYZX62Ei6QLUFbgZESdwS8krBy0dSqOn6aA@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <4F7F7C25.8040605@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20120407104912.44881be3@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <4F81F5FD.1090809@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20120408234555.695e291f@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Reply-to: stan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:11.0) Gecko/20120327 Thunderbird/11.0.1
On 4/8/2012 4:45 PM, Emmanuel Florac wrote:
> Le Sun, 08 Apr 2012 15:33:01 -0500 vous écriviez:
> 
>>>
>>> From my experience, with modern arrays don't make much of a
>>> difference. I've reached decent IOPS (i. e. about 4000 IOPS) on
>>> large arrays of up to 46 drives provided there are enough threads
>>> -- more threads than spindles, preferably.  
>>
>> Are you speaking of a mixed metadata/data heavy IOPS workload similar
>> to that which is the focus of this thread, or another type of
>> workload?  Is this 46 drive array RAID10 or RAID6?
> 
> Pure random access, 8K IO benchmark (database simulation). RAID-6
> performs about the same in pure reading tests, but stinks terribly at
> writing of course.

In your RAID10 random write testing, was this with a filesystem or doing
direct block IO?  If the latter, I wonder if its write pattern is
anything like the access pattern we'd see hitting dozens of AGs while
creating 10s of thousands of files.

-- 
Stan

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