Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Sun, 22 Jul 2001 10:45:22 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Sun, 22 Jul 2001 10:45:12 -0400 Received: from thebsh.namesys.com ([212.16.0.238]:13839 "HELO thebsh.namesys.com") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id ; Sun, 22 Jul 2001 10:45:03 -0400 Message-ID: <3B5AE600.29F1222D@namesys.com> Date: Sun, 22 Jul 2001 18:41:04 +0400 From: Hans Reiser Organization: Namesys X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.77 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.4.4 i686) X-Accept-Language: en, ru MIME-Version: 1.0 To: toon@vdpas.hobby.nl CC: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: Interesting disk throughput performance problem In-Reply-To: <20010721233313.A15232@sackheads.org> <3B5A9AD8.FADBA3CF@namesys.com> <20010722160754.A4027@vdpas.hobby.nl> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=koi8-r Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Original-Recipient: rfc822;linux-kernel-outgoing toon@vdpas.hobby.nl wrote: > > On Sun, Jul 22, 2001 at 01:20:24PM +0400, Hans Reiser wrote: > > > > I'm just guessing here, but is write caching active on one but not the other? > > What do you mean? > That he should activate the write caching in all his drives? Didn't say that, I simply asked a question to collect data before formulating any opinion. > I thought that was plain stupid and wrong, because the filesystem > expects journal data to hit the disk immedialtely. The journal > is written synchronously, isn't it? > So I would expect you to advise everybody to deactivate any > caching in drives and controllers. An the we are back with > Jimmie's question: the throughput performance of his drives > is bad, and the (theoretically) fastest drive is worst. A difference that large in throughput is not what I would first guess. > > Regards, > Toon (running a newsserver with reiserfs-3.5.32 on top of LVM-0.9.1-beta7 on > top of DAC960 hardware RAID5 with write-caching turned off, using linux-2.2.19) > > > Jimmie Mayfield wrote: > > > > > > Hi. I'm running into some disk throughput issues that I can't explain. > > > Hopefully someone reading this can offer an explanation. > > > > > > One of my machines is running 2.4.5 and has 2 hard drives: a 7200 rpm > > > ATA100 Maxtor and a 5400 rpm ATA33 IBM. Each drive is a master on its own > > > controller (AMI CMD649 as found on the IWill KT266-R). Both drives contain > > > reiserfs 3.6x filesystems. > > > > > > By all local benchmarks, the 7200 rpm drive is the faster drive. But this > > > doesn't seem to be the case for large files originating from remote clients. > > > Witness: > > > > > > My crude test involves scp'ing a 100MB file from another machine on my home > > > network over 100bT ethernet. > > > > > > 1) scp to the 5400rpm drive: roughly 10MB/sec. > > > 2) scp to the 7200rpm drive: roughly 2MB/sec. > > > > > > I've tried 'tail' and 'notail' mount options with no change (as expected since > > > this is a single large file). I suspect that the machine would become CPU-bound > > > somewhere in the 20MB/sec range (see below for my reasoning). > > > > > > I see the same sort of behavior using Samba though not nearly as > > > pronounced (the 5400rpm drive is merely 2x as fast as the 7200rpm drive). > > > > > > Okay. Since the test involved 2 separate drives with different geometries, > > > I figured this might be due to physical block location. Perhaps the file > > > is getting allocated to the fastest cylinders on the 5400 rpm drive and > > > the slowest cylinders on the 7200 rpm drive. Or it could be a fragmentation > > > issue. > > > > > > So I tried the test locally: with the file stored on the 5400rpm drive, > > > scp it to localhost and write it to the 7200rpm drive. Results were a little > > > below 10MB/sec (CPU near 100% presumably due to encrypting/decrypting on > > > the fly). > > > > > > Any ideas why the 7200rpm drive performs so poorly for remote clients but > > > performs wonderfully well when those same operations are performed locally? > > > > > > Jimmie > > > > > > - > > > 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/ > > - > > 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/ - 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/