Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1161077AbWASLkV (ORCPT ); Thu, 19 Jan 2006 06:40:21 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1161147AbWASLkV (ORCPT ); Thu, 19 Jan 2006 06:40:21 -0500 Received: from [212.76.80.241] ([212.76.80.241]:50442 "EHLO raad.intranet") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1161077AbWASLkV (ORCPT ); Thu, 19 Jan 2006 06:40:21 -0500 From: Al Boldi To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: io performance... Date: Thu, 19 Jan 2006 14:39:22 +0300 User-Agent: KMail/1.5 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline Cc: linux-raid@vger.kernel.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <200601191439.22686.a1426z@gawab.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1795 Lines: 47 Jeff V. Merkey wrote: > Jens Axboe wrote: > >On Mon, Jan 16 2006, Jeff V. Merkey wrote: > >>Max Waterman wrote: > >>>I've noticed that I consistently get better (read) numbers from kernel > >>>2.6.8 than from later kernels. > >> > >>To open the bottlenecks, the following works well. Jens will shoot me > >>-#define BLKDEV_MIN_RQ 4 > >>-#define BLKDEV_MAX_RQ 128 /* Default maximum */ > >>+#define BLKDEV_MIN_RQ 4096 > >>+#define BLKDEV_MAX_RQ 8192 /* Default maximum */ > > > >Yeah I could shoot you. However I'm more interested in why this is > >necessary, eg I'd like to see some numbers from you comparing: > > > >- Doing > > # echo 8192 > /sys/block//queue/nr_requests > > for each drive you are accessing. > > > >The BLKDEV_MIN_RQ increase is just silly and wastes a huge amount of > >memory for no good reason. > > Yep. I build it into the kernel to save the trouble of sending it to proc. > Jens recommendation will work just fine. It has the same affect of > increasing the max requests outstanding. Your suggestion doesn't do anything here on 2.6.15, but echo 192 > /sys/block//queue/max_sectors_kb echo 192 > /sys/block//queue/read_ahead_kb works wonders! I don't know why, but anything less than 64 and more than 256 makes the queue collapse miserably, causing some strange __copy_to_user calls?!?!? Also, it seems that changing the kernel HZ has some drastic effects on the queues. A simple lilo gets delayed 400% and 200% using 100HZ and 250HZ respectively. -- Al - 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/