mirror of https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Jeff Moyer <jmoyer@redhat.com>
To: Ralf Gross <rg@stz-softwaretechnik.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: io-scheduler tuning for better read/write ratio
Date: Tue, 16 Jun 2009 16:16:07 -0400	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <x49d494c4u0.fsf@segfault.boston.devel.redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20090616185600.GC7043@p15145560.pureserver.info> (Ralf Gross's message of "Tue, 16 Jun 2009 20:56:00 +0200")

Ralf Gross <rg@stz-softwaretechnik.com> writes:

> Casey Dahlin schrieb:
>> On 06/16/2009 02:40 PM, Ralf Gross wrote:
>> > David Newall schrieb:
>> >> Ralf Gross wrote:
>> >>> write throughput is much higher than the read throughput (40 MB/s
>> >>> read, 90 MB/s write).
>> > 
>> > Hm, but I get higher read throughput (160-200 MB/s) if I don't write
>> > to the device at the same time.
>> > 
>> > Ralf
>> 
>> How specifically are you testing? It could depend a lot on the
>> particular access patterns you're using to test.
>
> I did the basic tests with tiobench. The real test is a test backup
> (bacula) with 2 jobs that create 2 30 GB spool files on that device.
> The jobs partially write to the device in parallel. Depending which
> spool file reaches the 30 GB first, one starts reading from that file
> and writing to tape, while to other is still spooling.

We are missing a lot of details, here.  I guess the first thing I'd try
would be bumping up the max_readahead_kb parameter, since I'm guessing
that your backup application isn't driving very deep queue depths.  If
that doesn't work, then please provide exact invocations of tiobench
that reprduce the problem or some blktrace output for your real test.

Cheers,
Jeff

  reply	other threads:[~2009-06-16 20:20 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 20+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2009-06-16 15:43 Ralf Gross
2009-06-16 16:41 ` David Newall
2009-06-16 18:40   ` Ralf Gross
2009-06-16 18:43     ` Casey Dahlin
2009-06-16 18:56       ` Ralf Gross
2009-06-16 20:16         ` Jeff Moyer [this message]
2009-06-22 14:43           ` Jeff Moyer
2009-06-22 16:31             ` Ralf Gross
2009-06-22 19:42               ` Jeff Moyer
2009-06-23  7:24                 ` Ralf Gross
2009-06-23 13:53                   ` Jeff Moyer
2009-06-24  7:25                     ` Ralf Gross
2009-06-24  7:57                       ` Al Boldi
2009-06-25  7:26                         ` Ralf Gross
2009-06-25 13:45                           ` Al Boldi
2009-06-25  7:27                         ` Ralf Gross
2009-06-26  2:19                 ` Wu Fengguang
2009-06-26 10:44                   ` Jens Axboe
2009-06-27  3:46                     ` Wu Fengguang
2009-06-29  9:47                       ` Ralf Gross

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=x49d494c4u0.fsf@segfault.boston.devel.redhat.com \
    --to=jmoyer@redhat.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=rg@stz-softwaretechnik.com \
    /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®