From: Eric Wong <normalperson@yhbt.net>
To: David Oostdyk <daveo@ll.mit.edu>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>
Subject: Re: high-speed disk I/O is CPU-bound?
Date: Sat, 11 May 2013 00:19:05 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20130511001905.GA21286@dcvr.yhbt.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <518CFE7C.9080708@ll.mit.edu>
Cc-ing Jens
David Oostdyk <daveo@ll.mit.edu> wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I have a few relatively high-end systems with hardware RAIDs which
> are being used for recording systems, and I'm trying to get a better
> understanding of contiguous write performance.
>
> The hardware that I've tested with includes two high-end Intel
> E5-2600 and E5-4600 (~3GHz) series systems, as well as a slightly
> older Xeon 5600 system. The JBODs include a 45x3.5" JBOD, a 28x3.5"
> JBOD (with either 7200RPM or 10kRPM SAS drives), and a 24x2.5" JBOD
> with 10kRPM drives. I've tried LSI controllers (9285-8e, 9266-8i,
> as well as the integrated Intel LSI controllers) as well as Adaptec
> Series 7 RAID controllers (72405 and 71685).
Which I/O scheduler are you using? noop (or deadline) may improve
things with hardware RAID.
> Normally I'll setup the RAIDs as RAID60 and format them as XFS, but
> the exact RAID level, filesystem type, and even RAID hardware don't
> seem to matter very much from my observations (but I'm willing to
> try any suggestions). As a basic benchmark, I have an application
> that simply writes the same buffer (say, 128MB) to disk repeatedly.
> Alternatively you could use the "dd" utility. (For these
> benchmarks, I set /proc/sys/vm/dirty_bytes to 512M or lower, since
> these systems have a lot of RAM.)
>
> The basic observations are:
>
> 1. "single-threaded" writes, either a file on the mounted
> filesystem or with a "dd" to the raw RAID device, seem to be limited
> to 1200-1400MB/sec. These numbers vary slightly based on whether
> TurboBoost is affecting the writing process or not. "top" will show
> this process running at 100% CPU.
>
> 2. With two benchmarks running on the same device, I see aggregate
> write speeds of up to ~2.4GB/sec, which is closer to what I'd expect
> the drives of being able to deliver. This can either be with two
> applications writing to separate files on the same mounted file
> system, or two separate "dd" applications writing to distinct
> locations on the raw device. (Increasing the number of writers
> beyond two does not seem to increase aggregate performance; "top"
> will show both processes running at perhaps 80% CPU).
>
> 3. I haven't been able to find any tricks (lio_listio, multiple
> threads writing to distinct file offsets, etc) that seem to deliver
> higher write speeds when writing to a single file. (This might be
> xfs-specific, though)
>
> 4. Cheap tricks like making a software RAID0 of two hardware RAID
> devices does not deliver any improved performance for
> single-threaded writes. (Have not thoroughly tested this
> configuration fully with multiple writers, though.)
>
> 5. Similar hardware on Windows seems to be able to deliver >3GB/sec
> write speeds on a single-threaded writes, and the trick of making a
> software RAID0 of two hardware RAIDs does deliver increased write
> speeds. (I only point this out to say that I think the hardware is
> not necessarily the bottleneck.)
>
> The question is, is it possible that high-speed I/O to these
> hardware RAIDs could actually be CPU-bound above ~1400MB/sec?
>
> It seems to be the only explanation of the benchmarks that I've been
> seeing, but I don't know where to start looking to really determine
> the bottleneck. I'm certainly open to suggestions to running
> different configurations or benchmarks.
>
> Thanks for any help/advice!
> Dave O.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2013-05-11 0:19 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2013-05-10 14:04 David Oostdyk
2013-05-11 0:19 ` Eric Wong [this message]
2013-05-13 14:58 ` David Oostdyk
2013-05-12 16:53 ` Rob Landley
2013-05-13 15:18 ` David Oostdyk
2013-05-16 0:59 ` Dave Chinner
2013-05-16 11:36 ` Stan Hoeppner
2013-05-16 15:35 ` David Oostdyk
2013-05-16 22:56 ` Dave Chinner
2013-05-17 11:56 ` Stan Hoeppner
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=20130511001905.GA21286@dcvr.yhbt.net \
--to=normalperson@yhbt.net \
--cc=axboe@kernel.dk \
--cc=daveo@ll.mit.edu \
--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®