From: David Rees <drees76@gmail.com>
To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Large write = large latency for small writes
Date: Tue, 17 Mar 2009 13:19:18 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <72dbd3150903171319u567fc267m36857506c024315d@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
There is a fairly active bug 12309 "Large I/O operations result in
slow performance and high iowait times" [1] which has gotten rather
large an unwieldy due to the number of participants and confusion due
to what appears to be multiple bugs in either the schedule or IO
request merging layers.
I encountered this bug when seeing some horrible latency on a NFS
client while the server was performing heavy IO [2] and initially
thought it was a NFS bug, but later found that NFS only makes it worse
because writes over NFS are synchronous by default.
I have a simple test case which demonstrates the huge increase in
write latency that occurs for small writes when a large disk
saturating write is also in progress [3]:
dd if=/dev/zero of=/tmp/bigfile bs=1M count=10000 conv=fdatasync &
sleep 10
time dd if=/dev/zero of=/tmp/smallfile bs=4k count=1 conv=fdatasync
On a handful of systems I have access to, it took anywhere from 6-45
seconds for the small write to complete. Others in the bug have
reproduced this across a number of filesystems (ext3, reiserfs, ext4).
xfs in particular seems to handle this test case better than the
others. As do systems which can sustain high write speeds.
The only way I've been able to reduce the latency to acceptable levels
is to drop vm.dirty_background_ratio and vm.dirty_ratio to 1 and 2
respectively - but even then on some systems the small write still
takes 5-7 seconds.
The systems I've been testing on are all Fedora 9 or 10 systems with
the latest kernels (basically 2.6.27.19), ext3 filesystems and various
amounts of CPU, memory and disk subsystems (but nothing too new or
fast).
Any ideas? How much latency is acceptable with the test case?
-Dave
[1] http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=12309
[2] http://marc.info/?l=linux-nfs&m=123697692631683&w=2
[3] http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=12309#c249
next reply other threads:[~2009-03-17 20:19 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2009-03-17 20:19 David Rees [this message]
2009-03-17 22:09 ` Peter Zijlstra
2009-03-17 22:29 ` David Rees
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=72dbd3150903171319u567fc267m36857506c024315d@mail.gmail.com \
--to=drees76@gmail.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®