xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

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

To: stan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: XFS: Abysmal write performance because of excessive seeking (allocation groups to blame?)
From: Stefan Ring <stefanrin@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 9 Apr 2012 13:52:46 +0200
Cc: xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=ckOB/A9T704W0jmOFbWbucMoqPrD0yZfb363hUQ+iEc=; b=n9BFEOoFCUKKhzDe52lQlCBROQ0ZbvslHKv7SCS0Epk/GH13F+Q0fafXpggNwS8KHO jQyLQ1kfz31c+dnCuiJJ0KK1uhvwDn3ZWiLG0Ic0fLHNHmLo006W1Y+/yEY0ZynvecQf /Zi3imODvOW/Rc6qJyowl4IklJNExpQ1Yzvynnmi9TjGSlgw9bljsvyDlAA/zlRe8Jd1 gTw3bt7VR+hC63ha12amnvmROpICJePvtx4KjFwKewgBvIHioxetYEbAafzDtWGj3WqP u/KGcgWkm49BhLxXP0+wITQKr0MYQSWJvTVIx1pEvh5N8iAB8Gxexk3jER6dTH1Fgt6L Iovw==
In-reply-to: <4F826FFA.4050207@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <CAAxjCEwBMbd0x7WQmFELM8JyFu6Kv_b+KDe3XFqJE6shfSAfyQ@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20350.9643.379841.771496@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20350.13616.901974.523140@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <CAAxjCEzkemiYin4KYZX62Ei6QLUFbgZESdwS8krBy0dSqOn6aA@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20352.28730.273834.568559@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <4F8074EC.2030108@xxxxxxxxx> <4F82063F.4070609@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <4F826FFA.4050207@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> It seems the 1078 is simply not that quick with anything but pure
> striping.  Hardware RAID10 write performance appears only about 50%
> faster than RAID6.  The RAID6 speed is roughly 1/3rd of the RAID0 speed.
>  So exporting the individual drives as I previously mentioned and using
> mdraid6 should yield at least  a 3x improvement, assuming your CPUs
> aren't already loaded down.

Whatever the problem with the controller may be, it behaves quite
nicely usually. It seems clear though, that, regardless of the storage
technology, it cannot be a good idea to schedule tiny blocks in the
order that XFS schedules them in my case.

This:
AG0 *   *   *
AG1  *   *   *
AG2   *   *   *
AG3    *   *   *

cannot be better than this:

AG0 ***
AG1    ***
AG2       ***
AG3          ***

Yes, in theory, a good cache controller should be able to sort this
out. But at least this particular controller is not able to do so and
could use a little help. Also, a single consumer-grade drive is
certainly not helped by this write ordering.

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