From: David Rees <drees76@gmail.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Large write = large latency for small writes
Date: Tue, 17 Mar 2009 15:29:58 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <72dbd3150903171529pa054082q5aeb2848d18fb87@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1237327752.5189.1119.camel@laptop>
On Tue, Mar 17, 2009 at 3:09 PM, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> wrote:
> On Tue, 2009-03-17 at 13:19 -0700, David Rees wrote:
>> 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.
>
> How does it fare without the fdatasync?
>
> That is, is it the sync that's taking ages, or the ditry?
It's the fdatasync that takes ages. Without fdatasync the small write
finishes in an instant. In the test I just ran, it took 65 seconds
for the small write to complete with the fdatasync and 0.0001 seconds
without it. I think this is also why ext4 and xfs seem to handle the
problem a bit better than ext3/reiserfs.
Which is why I initially thought it was a NFS issue as I didn't see
too many bad delays when working directly on the server during
sustained server write load, only when working over NFS which mounts
sync by default.
-Dave
prev parent reply other threads:[~2009-03-17 22:30 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2009-03-17 20:19 David Rees
2009-03-17 22:09 ` Peter Zijlstra
2009-03-17 22:29 ` David Rees [this message]
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=72dbd3150903171529pa054082q5aeb2848d18fb87@mail.gmail.com \
--to=drees76@gmail.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=peterz@infradead.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®