| To: | Peter Grandi <pg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Linux fs XFS <xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: Problem about very high Average Read/Write Request Time |
| From: | Bernd Schubert <bernd.schubert@xxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Mon, 20 Oct 2014 10:00:34 +0200 |
| Delivered-to: | xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| Dkim-signature: | v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=fastmail.fm; h= x-sasl-enc:message-id:date:from:mime-version:to:subject :references:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; s=mesmtp; bh=hWnU18p2mj91DHgJPkr4msMKRZU=; b=ZCOz0CQhl0n1wHUfvk hRU91Be3s9Z2cTc+TzAyHZmz1DOBC/2GLDONGOvDqOiqr1qOj/fmo2uLgERBHqX9 UYrUGezDm9USRjjVWngMdN8o1/Kk0dWmJFaOtIiHrDC8wQ2z7UeJQqMMx4M913OK KSgDEJM+enu4jvUgOldhQMyK0= |
| Dkim-signature: | v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=x-sasl-enc:message-id:date:from :mime-version:to:subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; s=smtpout; bh=hWnU18p2mj91DHgJPkr4ms MKRZU=; b=hp21pldvjjR0N1wYwncu6ALSbOpP6Iv00lgJUPHmbWvUL2YRAPe0D2 7W8w36fOZ1mhIuqYCkB+P5w+X1BVkrPa1MXkt9s0xCbW6r/f1PuZhNaefKAzq5Gl MkQ0ovzL6EoZuIXxuJZHCjmOOfJofXhNyJr6980GDmjx0HTDVGR1k= |
| In-reply-to: | <21571.36364.518119.806191@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Newsgroups: | gmane.comp.file-systems.xfs.general |
| References: | <CALSoAzD4ccHXBuD6mT3ggqMf1j_kDEK-RNMOeRLq+N+NiWVQXg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20141018143848.3baf3266@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <21571.36364.518119.806191@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| User-agent: | Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.1.2 |
On 10/19/2014 12:10 PM, Peter Grandi wrote: >>> I am using xfs on a raid 5 (~100TB) and put log on external >>> ssd device, the mount information is: /dev/sdc on >>> /data/fhgfs/fhgfs_storage type xfs >>> (rw,relatime,attr2,delaylog,logdev=/dev/sdb1,sunit=512,swidth=15872,noquota). >>> when doing only reading / only writing , the speed is very >>> fast(~1.5G), but when do both the speed is very slow (100M), >>> and high r_await(160) and w_await(200000). > >> What are your kernel version, mount options and xfs_info output ? > > Those are usually important details, but in this case the > information that matters is already present. > > There is a ratio of 31 (thirty one) between 'swidth' and 'sunit' > and assuming that this reflects the geometry of the RAID5 set > and given commonly available disk sizes it can be guessed that > with amazing "bravery" someone has configured a RAID5 out of 32 > (thirty two) high capacity/low IOPS 3TB drives, or something > similar. > > It is even "braver" than that: if the device name > "/data/fhgfs/fhgfs_storage" is dedscriptive, this "brave" > RAID5 set is supposed to hold the object storage layer of a > BeeFS highly parallel filesystem, and therefore will likely > have mostly-random accesses. > Where do you get the assumption from that FhGFS/BeeGFS is going to do random reads/writes or the application of top of it is going to do that? Bernd |
| Previous by Date: | Re: Can't build RPM of xfstests, Eric Sandeen |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: Can't build RPM of xfstests, Greg Freemyer |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: Problem about very high Average Read/Write Request Time, Peter Grandi |
| Next by Thread: | Re: Problem about very high Average Read/Write Request Time, Peter Grandi |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |