lkml.org 
[lkml]   [1998]   [Dec]   [14]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: SMP 2.1.131: SCSI performance extremely poor vs. IDE
From
Date

Greetings! I'm running 2.1.130, SMP, 2 PII 350, 128 MB RAM, Adaptec
7890 U2 wide, 2 Seagate ST39173LW "Barracuda" drives. I patched the
driver slightly so that the 80 MByte/s transfer speed is correctly
negotiated. (I think you might have posted the patch?)

In any case, I'm not getting anything like these numbers. Basically,
I don't see any noticeable improvement with RAID, except maybe for
seeks. I haven't tried RAID-0 yet, just RAID-1, but I thought that
could double the read performance. What does it mean to connect
drives to different "channels" on the same controller? In any case, I
thought the contoller had enough bandwidth to handle at least two
drives full throttle. Any advice would be much appreciated.

Here are my bonnie results:

1 disk:
-------Sequential Output-------- ---Sequential Input-- --Random--
-Per Char- --Block--- -Rewrite-- -Per Char- --Block--- --Seeks---
Machine MB K/sec %CPU K/sec %CPU K/sec %CPU K/sec %CPU K/sec %CPU /sec %CPU
512 5905 95.1 11864 25.8 4372 15.0 6306 89.3 13744 18.5 117.9 2.0

RAID-1 partition:
-------Sequential Output-------- ---Sequential Input-- --Random--
-Per Char- --Block--- -Rewrite-- -Per Char- --Block--- --Seeks---
Machine MB K/sec %CPU K/sec %CPU K/sec %CPU K/sec %CPU K/sec %CPU /sec %CPU
512 5679 93.7 12624 33.6 4323 17.7 6272 90.2 14290 22.3 141.4 3.1

/proc/scsi/aic7xxx/0:
Adaptec AIC7xxx driver version: 5.1.4/3.2.4
Compile Options:
AIC7XXX_RESET_DELAY : 5
AIC7XXX_TAGGED_QUEUEING: Adapter Support Enabled
Check below to see which
devices use tagged queueing
AIC7XXX_PAGE_ENABLE : Enabled (This is no longer an option)
AIC7XXX_PROC_STATS : Disabled

Adapter Configuration:
SCSI Adapter: Adaptec AIC-7890/1 Ultra2 SCSI host adapter
Ultra2-LVD/SE Wide Controller
PCI MMAPed I/O Base: 0xe0000000
Adapter SEEPROM Config: SEEPROM found and used.
Adaptec SCSI BIOS: Enabled
IRQ: 5
SCBs: Active 0, Max Active 2,
Allocated 15, HW 32, Page 255
Interrupts: 518093
BIOS Control Word: 0x18a6
Adapter Control Word: 0x1c5e
Extended Translation: Enabled
Disconnect Enable Flags: 0xffff
Ultra Enable Flags: 0x0000
Tag Queue Enable Flags: 0x0000
Ordered Queue Tag Flags: 0x0000
Default Tag Queue Depth: 8
Tagged Queue By Device array for aic7xxx host instance 0:
{255,255,255,255,255,255,255,255,255,255,255,255,255,255,255,255}
Actual queue depth per device for aic7xxx host instance 0:
{1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1}

Statistics:
(scsi0:0:0:0)
Device using Wide/Sync transfers at
80.0 MByte/sec, offset 15
Device Negotiation Settings
Period Offset Bus Width
User 010 127 1
Goal 010 127 1
Current 010 015 1
Total transfers 409840 (188177 read;221663 written)
blks(512) rd=1275901; blks(512) wr=2719536


(scsi0:0:1:0)
Device using Wide/Sync transfers at
80.0 MByte/sec, offset 15
Device Negotiation Settings
Period Offset Bus Width
User 010 127 1
Goal 010 127 1
Current 010 015 1
Total transfers 108173 (100970 read;7203 written)
blks(512) rd=7221199; blks(512) wr=26402


/proc/scsi/scsi:
Host: scsi0 Channel: 00 Id: 00 Lun: 00
Vendor: SEAGATE Model: ST39173LW Rev: 5702
Type: Direct-Access ANSI SCSI revision: 02
Host: scsi0 Channel: 00 Id: 01 Lun: 00
Vendor: SEAGATE Model: ST39173LW Rev: 5702
Type: Direct-Access ANSI SCSI revision: 02


Thanks!

Doug Ledford <dledford@redhat.com> writes:

> Chris wrote:
> >
> > >>>>> "Lawrence" == Lawrence Walton <lawrence@otak-k.com> writes:
> >
> > Lawrence> I wonder about the bonnie benchmarking, but here is a
> > Lawrence> SCSI benchmark with bonnie and a Symbios 875 and a 18
> > Lawrence> barracuda, P233 and 128 megs of ram. Linux version
> >
> > Lawrence> How does this stack up? is it a SMP only thing?
> >
> > Just as a side note, bonnie benchmarks of a size less than several
> > times RAM, are just a test of memory bandwidth, since a large portion
> > gets cached. Try comparing those numbers to a 800 - 1000 meg test...
> >
> > Heck, I've seen read rates of over 50meg/sec off of some small
> > tests ;) If you want to see some benchmarks to compare against look
> > at the bonnie results at
> >
> > http://www.tec.ualberta.ca/Benchmarks/benchmarks.html
>
> Those particular numbers all look to be from fairly dated hardware.
> With somewhat modern hardware (5 Seagate Cheetah Ultra2 drives on two
> Ultra2 channels on one 3950U2b Adaptec controller all in a RAID0 array
> in a PII 266 box with 128MB RAM) I'm seeing numbers like these:
>
> 2.0.36UP:
> -------Sequential Output-------- ---Sequential Input-- --Random--
> -Per Char- --Block--- -Rewrite-- -Per Char- --Block--- --Seeks---
> MB K/sec %CPU K/sec %CPU K/sec %CPU K/sec %CPU K/sec %CPU /sec %CPU
> 512 12020 98.2 65325 89.0 14788 50.0 14585 94.2 65283 86.7 255.1 5.5
> 512 12018 98.2 64312 87.8 14975 49.8 14707 95.3 65065 85.4 251.4 5.2
> 512 12041 98.2 66525 91.7 15027 50.2 14801 95.6 63949 86.2 258.8 5.6
>
> The numbers I have for 2.1.131 so far are all SMP numbers and so can't
> be compared against the 2.0.36 numbers. I plan on getting some UP
> numbers for 2.1.131 as well before too long.
>
> --
> Doug Ledford <dledford@redhat.com>
> Opinions expressed are my own, but
> they should be everybody's.
>
> -
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
> Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

--
Camm Maguire camm@enhanced.com
==========================================================================
"The earth is but one country, and mankind its citizens." -- Baha'u'llah

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:46    [W:0.084 / U:0.232 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site