From: Andrew Morton <akpm@digeo.com>
To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: iosched: concurrent reads of many small files
Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2003 21:26:27 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20030220212627.796605c9.akpm@digeo.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20030220212304.4712fee9.akpm@digeo.com>
This test is very approximately the "busy web server" workload. We set up a
number of processes each of which are reading many small files from different
parts of the disk.
Set up six separate copies of the 2.4.19 kernel tree, and then run, in
parallel, six processes which are reading them:
for i in 1 2 3 4 5 6
do
time (find kernel-tree-$i -type f | xargs cat > /dev/null ) &
done
With this test we have six read requests in the queue all the time. It's
what the anticipatory scheduler was designed for.
2.4.21-pre4:
6m57.537s
6m57.620s
6m57.741s
6m57.891s
6m57.909s
6m57.916s
2.5.61+hacks:
3m40.188s
3m51.332s
3m55.110s
3m56.186s
3m56.757s
3m56.791s
2.5.61+CFQ:
5m15.932s
5m16.219s
5m16.386s
5m17.407s
5m50.233s
5m50.602s
2.5.61+AS:
0m44.573s
0m45.119s
0m46.559s
0m49.202s
0m51.884s
0m53.087s
This was a little unfair to 2.4 because three of the trees were laid out by
the pre-Orlov ext2. So I reran the test with 2.4.21-pre4 when all six trees
were laid out by 2.5's Orlov allocator:
6m12.767s
6m12.974s
6m13.001s
6m13.045s
6m13.062s
6m13.085s
Not much difference there, although Orlov is worth a 4x speedup in this test
when there is only a single reader (or multiple readers + anticipatory
scheduler)
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2003-02-21 5:16 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 27+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2003-02-21 5:23 IO scheduler benchmarking Andrew Morton
2003-02-21 5:23 ` iosched: parallel streaming reads Andrew Morton
2003-02-21 5:24 ` iosched: effect of streaming write on interactivity Andrew Morton
2003-02-21 5:25 ` iosched: effect of streaming read " Andrew Morton
2003-02-21 5:25 ` iosched: time to copy many small files Andrew Morton
2003-02-21 5:26 ` Andrew Morton [this message]
2003-02-21 5:27 ` iosched: impact of streaming write on streaming read Andrew Morton
2003-02-21 5:27 ` iosched: impact of streaming write on read-many-files Andrew Morton
2003-02-21 5:27 ` iosched: impact of streaming read " Andrew Morton
2003-02-21 10:40 ` Andrea Arcangeli
2003-02-21 10:55 ` Nick Piggin
2003-02-21 11:23 ` Andrea Arcangeli
2003-02-21 21:11 ` Andrew Morton
2003-02-23 15:16 ` Andrea Arcangeli
2003-02-25 12:02 ` Pavel Machek
2003-02-21 5:28 ` iosched: effect of streaming read on streaming write Andrew Morton
2003-02-21 6:51 ` IO scheduler benchmarking David Lang
2003-02-21 8:16 ` Andrew Morton
2003-02-21 10:31 ` Andrea Arcangeli
2003-02-21 10:51 ` William Lee Irwin III
2003-02-21 11:08 ` Andrea Arcangeli
2003-02-21 11:17 ` Nick Piggin
2003-02-21 11:41 ` Andrea Arcangeli
2003-02-21 21:25 ` Andrew Morton
2003-02-23 15:09 ` Andrea Arcangeli
2003-02-21 11:34 ` William Lee Irwin III
2003-02-21 12:38 ` Andrea Arcangeli
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=20030220212627.796605c9.akpm@digeo.com \
--to=akpm@digeo.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@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®