From: Doug Ledford <dledford@redhat.com>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>
Cc: "Antonio Larrosa Jiménez" <antlarr@tedial.com>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
"linux-scsi mailing list" <linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: iowait problems on 2.6, not on 2.4
Date: Sat, 29 May 2004 20:46:31 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1085877991.18642.336.camel@compaq.xsintricity.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20040528154525.6ed5f7b9.akpm@osdl.org>
On Fri, 2004-05-28 at 18:45, Andrew Morton wrote:
> Antonio Larrosa Jiménez <antlarr@tedial.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Thursday 27 May 2004 05:52, you wrote:
> > > Antonio Larrosa Jiménez <antlarr@tedial.com> wrote:
> > > > My next test will be to do the "dd tests" on one of the internal hard
> > > > disks and use it for the data instead of the external raid.
> > >
> > > That's a logical next step. The reduced read bandwith on the raid array
> > > should be fixed up before we can go any further. I don't recall any
> > > reports of qlogic fc-scsi performance regressions though.
> >
> > Ok, let's analyze that first.
> >
> > The dd tests gave the following results:
>
> Let me cc linux-scsi.
>
> Guys: poke. Does anyone know why this:
>
> The machine is a 4 cpu Pentium III (Cascades) system with four SCSI
> SEAGATE ST336704 hard disks connected to an Adaptec AIC-7899P U160/m, and
> a external RAID connected to a QLA2200/QLA2xxx FC-SCSI Host Bus Adapter.
> The machine has 1Gb RAM.
>
> got all slow at reads?
My first guess would be read ahead values. Try poking around with
those. When using a hard disk vs. a raid array, it's easier to trigger
firmware read ahead since all reads go to a single physical device and
that in turn compensates for lack of reasonable OS read ahead. On a
raid array, depending on the vendor, there may be next to no firmware
initiated read ahead and that can drastically reduce read performance on
sequential reads.
> > So yes, I suppose there's a regression on the qlogic fc-scsi module.
A regression, yes. In the qlogic-fc driver? I doubt it. Performance
tuning is what I think this basically boils down to.
But, I could be wrong. Give it a try and see what happens. In the 2.4
kernels I would tell you to tweak /proc/sys/vm/{min,max}-readahead,
don't know if those two knobs still exist in 2.6 and if they have the
same effect. Andrew?
--
Doug Ledford <dledford@redhat.com> 919-754-3700 x44233
Red Hat, Inc.
1801 Varsity Dr.
Raleigh, NC 27606
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2004-05-30 0:48 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2004-05-26 15:43 Antonio Larrosa Jiménez
2004-05-27 3:52 ` Andrew Morton
2004-05-28 13:16 ` Antonio Larrosa Jiménez
2004-05-28 22:45 ` Andrew Morton
2004-05-30 0:46 ` Doug Ledford [this message]
2004-05-30 4:52 ` Andrew Morton
2004-05-31 11:24 ` Antonio Larrosa Jiménez
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=1085877991.18642.336.camel@compaq.xsintricity.com \
--to=dledford@redhat.com \
--cc=akpm@osdl.org \
--cc=antlarr@tedial.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®