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: Mon, 22 Jun 2009 10:43:17 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <x49fxdsl46y.fsf@segfault.boston.devel.redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <x49d494c4u0.fsf@segfault.boston.devel.redhat.com> (Jeff Moyer's message of "Tue, 16 Jun 2009 16:16:07 -0400")
Jeff Moyer <jmoyer@redhat.com> writes:
> 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.
Any news, Ralf?
Cheers,
Jeff
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2009-06-22 14:43 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
2009-06-22 14:43 ` Jeff Moyer [this message]
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=x49fxdsl46y.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®