Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id <S285177AbRLRVNX>; Tue, 18 Dec 2001 16:13:23 -0500
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org
	id <S285179AbRLRVMC>; Tue, 18 Dec 2001 16:12:02 -0500
Received: from mail.libertysurf.net ([213.36.80.91]:13868 "EHLO
	mail.libertysurf.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
	id <S285178AbRLRVLh> convert rfc822-to-8bit; Tue, 18 Dec 2001 16:11:37 -0500
Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2001 20:09:24 +0100 (CET)
From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?G=E9rard_Roudier?= <groudier@free.fr>
X-X-Sender: <groudier@gerard>
To: Andre Hedrick <andre@linuxdiskcert.org>
cc: jlm <jsado@mediaone.net>, <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Poor performance during disk writes
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.10.10112181230570.21250-100000@master.linux-ide.org>
Message-ID: <20011218195509.U2272-100000@gerard>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org



On Tue, 18 Dec 2001, Andre Hedrick wrote:

> On Tue, 18 Dec 2001, G?rard Roudier wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > On Tue, 18 Dec 2001, Andre Hedrick wrote:
> >
> > > File './Bonnie.2276', size: 1073741824, volumes: 1
> > > Writing with putc()...  done:  72692 kB/s  83.7 %CPU
> > > Rewriting...            done:  25355 kB/s  12.0 %CPU
> > > Writing intelligently...done: 103022 kB/s  40.5 %CPU
> > > Reading with getc()...  done:  37188 kB/s  67.5 %CPU
> > > Reading intelligently...done:  40809 kB/s  11.4 %CPU
> > > Seeker 2...Seeker 1...Seeker 3...start 'em...done...done...done...
> > >               ---Sequential Output (nosync)--- ---Sequential Input-- --Rnd Seek-
> > >               -Per Char- --Block--- -Rewrite-- -Per Char- --Block--- --04k (03)-
> > > Machine    MB K/sec %CPU K/sec %CPU K/sec %CPU K/sec %CPU K/sec %CPU   /sec %CPU
> > >        1*1024 72692 83.7 103022 40.5 25355 12.0 37188 67.5 40809 11.4  382.1  2.4
> > >
> > > Maybe this is the kind of performance you want out your ATA subsystem.
> > > Maybe if I could get a patch in to the kernels we could all have stable
> > > and fast IO.
> >
> > I rather see lots of wasting rather than performance, here. Bonnie says
> > that your subsystem can sustain 103 MB/s write but only 41 MB/s read. This
> > looks about 60% throughput wasted for read.
> >
> > Note that if you intend to use it only for write-only applications,
> > performance are not that bad, even if just dropping the data on the floor
> > would give you infinite throughput without any difference in
> > functionnality. :-)
>
> Well sense somebody paid/paying me make write performance go through the
> roof -- that is what I did.  Now if you look closely you could see that in
> writing we are doing a boat load more work than reading.  If somebody want
> me to throttle the reads more then they know how to get it done.

I am not the one that will pay you for that, as you can guess. :-)

I just was curious about the technical reasons, if any, of so large a
difference. Just, the CPU and the memory subsystem are certainly not the
issue. But I donnot want to prevent you from earning from such kind of
improvement. Hence, let me go back to free scsi.

  G?rard.

> Regards,
>
> Andre Hedrick
> Linux Disk Certification Project                Linux ATA Development

-
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/