Re: Performance problem - reads slower than writes

[Brian Candler <B.Candler@xxxxxxxxx>]

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.