[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: Sat, 14 Apr 2012 02:32:24 -0500
In-reply-to: <CAAxjCEw-WZ9AtEJTZ6eS9+mjm+yh=e_19aJqxUN-ABRp8r3ZyQ@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> <4F827341.2000607@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20120409144558.6072c1eb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <CAAxjCEw-WZ9AtEJTZ6eS9+mjm+yh=e_19aJqxUN-ABRp8r3ZyQ@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Reply-to: stan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:11.0) Gecko/20120327 Thunderbird/11.0.1
On 4/13/2012 2:36 PM, Stefan Ring wrote:
>> Let's rerun it with files cached (the machine has 16 GB RAM, so
>> every single file must be cached):
>> # time tar xf test.tar
>> real    0m50.842s
>> user    0m0.809s
>> sys     0m13.767s
> That’s about the same time I’m getting on a fresh (non-fragmented)
> file system with the RAID 6 volume.
> Interestingly, the P400’s successor, the P410 does recognize a setting
> that the P400 lacks, which is called elevatorsort. It sounds like this
> could make all the difference. Unfortunately, the P400 doesn’t have
> it. I don’t have a P410 with more than 2 drives to test this, but some
> effect should definitely be measurable.
> Since this finding has piqued my interest again, I’m willing to invest
> a little more time, but I’m completely occupied for the next few days,
> so it will have to wait a while.

What configuration are you running right now Stefan?  You said you went
back to XFS due to the EXT4 lockups, but I can't recall what RAID config
you put underneath it this time.


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