Message-ID: <3ED772F5.8060100@cyberone.com.au>
Date: Sat, 31 May 2003 01:04:21 +1000
From: Nick Piggin <piggin@cyberone.com.au>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.3) Gecko/20030327 Debian/1.3-4
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Kevin Jacobs <jacobs@penguin.theopalgroup.com>
CC: akpm@digeo.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Ext3 meta-data performance
References: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0305290923330.11990-100000@penguin.theopalgroup.com>
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0305290923330.11990-100000@penguin.theopalgroup.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org


Kevin Jacobs wrote:

>On Thu, 29 May 2003, Nick Piggin wrote:
>
>>Kevin Jacobs wrote:
>>
>>>[...]
>>>Since these rsync backups are done in addition to traditional daily tape
>>>backups, we've taken the system out of production use and opened the door
>>>for experimentation.  So, the next logical step was to try a 2.5 kernel. 
>>>After some work, I've gotten 2.5.70-mm2 booting and it is _much_ better than
>>>the Redhat 2.4 kernels, and the system interactivity is flawless.  However,
>>>the speed of creating hard-links is still three and a half times slower than
>>>with the old 2.2 kernel.  It now takes ~14 minutes to create the links, and
>>>
>>>from what I can tell, the bottlenecks is not the CPU or the disk-throughput. 
>>
>>Its probably seek bound.
>>Provide some more information about your disk/partition setup, and external
>>journals, and data= mode. Remember ext3 will generally always have to do
>>more work than ext2.
>>
>
>  SCSI ID 1  3ware 7500-8 ATA RAID Controller
>
>     * Array Unit 0  Mirror (RAID 1)  40.01 GB   OK
>          + Port 0 WDC WD400BB-00DEA0    40.02 GB   OK
>          + Port 1 WDC WD400BB-00DEA0    40.02 GB   OK
>     * Array Unit 4  Striped with Parity 64K (RAID 5)  555.84 GB   OK
>          + Port 4 IC35L180AVV207-1    185.28 GB   OK
>          + Port 5 IC35L180AVV207-1    185.28 GB   OK
>          + Port 6 IC35L180AVV207-1    185.28 GB   OK
>          + Port 7 IC35L180AVV207-1    185.28 GB   OK
>
>Disk /dev/sda: 40.0 GB, 40019615744 bytes
>255 heads, 63 sectors/track, 4865 cylinders
>Units = cylinders of 16065 * 512 = 8225280 bytes
>
>   Device Boot    Start       End    Blocks   Id  System
>/dev/sda1   *         1       261   2096451   83  Linux
>/dev/sda2           262      1566  10482412+  83  Linux
>/dev/sda3          1567      4570  24129630   83  Linux
>/dev/sda4          4571      4865   2369587+   f  Win95 Ext'd (LBA)
>/dev/sda5          4571      4589    152586   83  Linux
>/dev/sda6          4590      4734   1164681   83  Linux
>/dev/sda7          4735      4865   1052226   83  Linux
>
>Disk /dev/sdb: 555.8 GB, 555847581696 bytes
>255 heads, 63 sectors/track, 67577 cylinders
>Units = cylinders of 16065 * 512 = 8225280 bytes
>
>   Device Boot    Start       End    Blocks   Id  System
>/dev/sdb1   *         1     67577 542812221   83  Linux
>
>Unit 0 is /dev/sda and the journal is /dev/sda5. Unit 1 is /dev/sdb and the
>backup filesystem is /dev/sdb1. The data= mode is whatever is default,
>/dev/sdb1 is mounted noatime.  I've also applied the journal_refile_buffer
>patch posted by AKPM yesterday morning.
>
I think you should have your journal on its own spinde if
you are going to the trouble of having an external one.

>
>>If you want to play with the scheduler, try set
>>/sys/block/blockdev*/queue/nr_requests = 8192
>>
>
>This killed the entire system -- livelocking it with no disk activity to the
>point that I had to hit the reset button.  So does setting nr_requests on
>sda and sdb from 128 to 256.  The problems hit before the rsync, during a
>'rm -Rf' on a previously copied tree.
>
OK I'll have a look into that.

>
>>then try
>>/sys/block/blockdev*/queue/iosched/antic_expire = 0
>>
>
>This seemed to make no difference.
>
Thats alright then.

>
>>Try the above combinations with and without a big TCQ depth. You should
>>be able to set them on the fly and see what happens to throughput during
>>the operation. Let me know what you see.
>>
>
>I'm not sure how to change TCQ depth on the fly.  Last I knew, it was a
>compiled-in parameter.
>
Don't worry too much about this. Its probably not a big issue.

>
>I have some more time to experiment, so please let me know if there is
>anything else you think I should try.
>
Andrew might be able to suggest some worthwhile tests, if nothing
else, try mounting your filesystems as ext2, so you can get a
baseline figure.

-
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/