There are 2 hard drives (normal, magnetic) in software raid 1
on 3.2.41 kernel.
When I write into them e.g. using dd from /dev/zero to a local file
(ext4 on default settings), running 2 dd at once (writing two files) it
starves all other programs that try to use the disk.
Running ls on any directory on same disk (same fs btw), takes over half
minute to execute, same for any other disk touching action.
Did anyone seen such problem, where too look, what to test?
What could solve it (other then ionice on applications that I expect to
use hard drive)?
On 15/04/13 11:59, [email protected] wrote:
> There are 2 hard drives (normal, magnetic) in software raid 1
> on 3.2.41 kernel.
>
> When I write into them e.g. using dd from /dev/zero to a local file
> (ext4 on default settings), running 2 dd at once (writing two files) it
> starves all other programs that try to use the disk.
>
> Running ls on any directory on same disk (same fs btw), takes over half
> minute to execute, same for any other disk touching action.
>
> Did anyone seen such problem, where too look, what to test?
>
> What could solve it (other then ionice on applications that I expect to
> use hard drive)?
I got reply (by e-mail) suggesting to use XFS.
Thanks, possible for other/next server.
But I fell this should work correctly as well on ext4.
On Tue, 2013-04-16 at 08:49 +0200, [email protected] wrote:
> On 15/04/13 11:59, [email protected] wrote:
> > There are 2 hard drives (normal, magnetic) in software raid 1
> > on 3.2.41 kernel.
> >
> > When I write into them e.g. using dd from /dev/zero to a local file
> > (ext4 on default settings), running 2 dd at once (writing two files) it
> > starves all other programs that try to use the disk.
> >
> > Running ls on any directory on same disk (same fs btw), takes over half
> > minute to execute, same for any other disk touching action.
> >
> > Did anyone seen such problem, where too look, what to test?
> >
> > What could solve it (other then ionice on applications that I expect to
> > use hard drive)?
>
> I got reply (by e-mail) suggesting to use XFS.
> Thanks, possible for other/next server.
>
> But I fell this should work correctly as well on ext4.
It should not starve readers that badly, something is wrong.
You can try setting low_latency for the devices if you're using CFQ
ioscheduler. For my box, that would be..
echo 1 > /sys/devices/pci0000:00/0000:00:1f.2/ata2/host0/target0:0:0/0:0:0:0/block/sda/queue/iosched/low_latency
Or, you can try a different scheduler. cat (blabla)/sda/queue/scheduler
to see which choices are available, and echo your choice back to the
file to select it.
-Mike
15.04.2013 13:59, [email protected] пишет:
> There are 2 hard drives (normal, magnetic) in software raid 1
> on 3.2.41 kernel.
>
> When I write into them e.g. using dd from /dev/zero to a local file
> (ext4 on default settings), running 2 dd at once (writing two files) it
> starves all other programs that try to use the disk.
>
> Running ls on any directory on same disk (same fs btw), takes over half
> minute to execute, same for any other disk touching action.
>
> Did anyone seen such problem, where too look, what to test?
This is typical, known for many years, issue.
Your dds are run against buffer cache, the same as used by all other
regular accesses. So once it fills up, cached directories and the
like are thrown away to make room for new cache space. So once
you need something else, that something needs to be read from disk,
which is busy together with the buffer cache.
> What could solve it (other then ionice on applications that I expect to
> use hard drive)?
Just don't mix these two workloads. Or, if you really need to transfer
large amount of data, use direct I/O (O_DIRECT) -- for dd it is
iflag=direct or oflag=direct (depending on the I/O direction).
ionice wont help much.
Thanks,
/mjt
On Mon 15-04-13 11:59:59, [email protected] wrote:
> There are 2 hard drives (normal, magnetic) in software raid 1
> on 3.2.41 kernel.
Any possibility in trying a newer kernel? Like 3.8 / 3.9?
> When I write into them e.g. using dd from /dev/zero to a local file
> (ext4 on default settings), running 2 dd at once (writing two files) it
> starves all other programs that try to use the disk.
That shouldn't really happen. I presume you use the default IO scheduler?
i.e. CFQ?
> Running ls on any directory on same disk (same fs btw), takes over half
> minute to execute, same for any other disk touching action.
>
> Did anyone seen such problem, where too look, what to test?
Not in such a simple setting as yours.
> What could solve it (other then ionice on applications that I expect to
> use hard drive)?
ionice wouldn't help because dd writes the data into page cache and from
there flusher thread writes them to disk. So IO happens in flusher context
which won't be ioniced.
Honza
--
Jan Kara <[email protected]>
SUSE Labs, CR