Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S262176AbTERTqE (ORCPT ); Sun, 18 May 2003 15:46:04 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S262177AbTERTqE (ORCPT ); Sun, 18 May 2003 15:46:04 -0400 Received: from codeblau.walledcity.de ([212.84.209.34]:56333 "EHLO codeblau.de") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S262176AbTERTqD (ORCPT ); Sun, 18 May 2003 15:46:03 -0400 Date: Sun, 18 May 2003 21:59:13 +0200 From: Felix von Leitner To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: need better I/O scheduler for bulk file serving Message-ID: <20030518195913.GA19275@codeblau.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1073 Lines: 23 I'm doing some network scalability testing on Linux. I'm using sendfile and epoll on non-blocking file descriptors, and I am uploading several large files (CD images in my case) to several downloaders. When only one peer is downloading, I get wire speed bandwidth utilization. When three people are downloading different images (my server "only" has 512 MB RAM, so it can't hold even one of the images in memory) at the same time, the bandwidth utilization goes down to 6 MB/sec on my fast ethernet NIC. The hard disk appears to be busy seeking. What knobs exist to tweak this? This appears to be exactly the kind of problem the I/O schedulers are trying to solve, right? And the kernel has perfect knowledge of what is going to happen because sendfile is called with file size as length. Larger read-ahead maybe? Felix - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/