Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S965364AbXATUFp (ORCPT ); Sat, 20 Jan 2007 15:05:45 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S965366AbXATUFp (ORCPT ); Sat, 20 Jan 2007 15:05:45 -0500 Received: from 1wt.eu ([62.212.114.60]:2084 "EHLO 1wt.eu" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S965364AbXATUFo (ORCPT ); Sat, 20 Jan 2007 15:05:44 -0500 Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2007 21:05:15 +0100 From: Willy Tarreau To: Sunil Naidu Cc: Ismail =?iso-8859-1?Q?D=F6nmez?= , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: Abysmal disk performance, how to debug? Message-ID: <20070120200515.GA25307@1wt.eu> References: <200701201920.54620.ismail@pardus.org.tr> <20070120174503.GZ24090@1wt.eu> <200701201952.54714.ismail@pardus.org.tr> <20070120180344.GA23841@1wt.eu> <8355959a0701201144x290362d8ja6cd5bc1408475da@mail.gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <8355959a0701201144x290362d8ja6cd5bc1408475da@mail.gmail.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.11 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1868 Lines: 41 On Sun, Jan 21, 2007 at 01:14:41AM +0530, Sunil Naidu wrote: > On 1/20/07, Willy Tarreau wrote: > >> > > > > > >It is not expected to increase write performance, but it should help > >you do something else during that time, or also give more responsiveness > >to Ctrl-C. It is possible that you have fast and slow RAM, or that your > >video card uses shared memory which slows down some parts of memory > >which are not used anymore with those parameters. > > I did test some SATA drives, am getting these value for 2.6.20-rc5:- > > [sukhoi@Typhoon ~]$ time dd if=/dev/zero of=/tmp/1GB bs=1M count=1024 > 1024+0 records in > 1024+0 records out > 1073741824 bytes (1.1 GB) copied, 21.0962 seconds, 50.9 MB/s > > What can you suggest here w.r.t my RAM & disk? I don't suggest anything, this is already very good. The only goal of reducing memory write cache is to get a more responsive system when dumping massive amounts of data to disks, like above, because when the system starts flushing the caches, you can only wait for it to finish. But those tests are not realistic loads. A desktop and most servers will benefit from large caches. But *some* workloads will benefit from smaller caches if they consist in writing continuous streams (eg: tcpdump or video recorders). What I suggested to the user above was a way to get the system more responsive during his test. It should not have changed the throughput at all if the hardware was not a bit strange (well, it's a VAIO after all, I've had one too, fortunately it died one month after the warranty, putting an end to all my problems...). Regards, Willy - 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/