lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2009]   [Mar]   [25]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: Linux 2.6.29
David Rees wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 12:32 AM, Jesper Krogh <jesper@krogh.cc> wrote:
>> David Rees wrote:
>> The 480 secondes is not the "wait time" but the time gone before the
>> message is printed. It the kernel-default it was earlier 120 seconds but
>> thats changed by Ingo Molnar back in september. I do get a lot of less
>> noise but it really doesn't tell anything about the nature of the problem.
>>
>> The systes spec:
>> 32GB of memory. The disks are a Nexsan SataBeast with 42 SATA drives in
>> Raid10 connected using 4Gbit fibre-channel. I'll let it up to you to decide
>> if thats fast or slow?
>
> The drives should be fast enough to saturate 4Gbit FC in streaming
> writes. How fast is the array in practice?

Thats allways a good question.. This is by far not being the only user
of the array at the time of testing.. (there are 4 FC-channel connected
to a switch). Creating a fresh slice.. and just dd'ing onto it from
/dev/zero gives:
jk@hest:~$ sudo dd if=/dev/zero of=/dev/sdh bs=1M count=10000
10000+0 records in
10000+0 records out
10485760000 bytes (10 GB) copied, 78.0557 s, 134 MB/s
jk@hest:~$ sudo dd if=/dev/zero of=/dev/sdh bs=1M count=1000
1000+0 records in
1000+0 records out
1048576000 bytes (1.0 GB) copied, 8.11019 s, 129 MB/s
Watching using dstat while dd'ing it peaks at 220M/s

If I watch numbers on "dstat" output in production. It gets at peak
around the same(130MB/s) but average is in the 90-100 MB/s range.

It has 2GB of battery backed cache. I'm fairly sure that when it was new
(and I only had connected one host) I could get it up at around 350MB/s.

>> The strange thing is actually that the above process (updatedb.mlocate) is
>> writing to / which is a device without any activity at all. All activity is
>> on the Fibre Channel device above, but process writing outsid that seems to
>> be effected as well.
>
> Ah. Sounds like your setup would benefit immensely from the per-bdi
> patches from Jens Axobe. I'm sure he would appreciate some feedback
> from users like you on them.
>
>>> What's your vm.dirty_background_ratio and
>>>
>>> vm.dirty_ratio set to?
>> 2.6.29-rc8 defaults:
>> jk@hest:/proc/sys/vm$ cat dirty_background_ratio
>> 5
>> jk@hest:/proc/sys/vm$ cat dirty_ratio
>> 10
>
> On a 32GB system that's 1.6GB of dirty data, but your array should be
> able to write that out fairly quickly (in a couple seconds) as long as
> it's not too random. If it's spread all over the disk, write
> throughput will drop significantly - how fast is data being written to
> disk when your system suffers from large write latency?

Thats another thing. I havent been debugging while hitting it (yet) but
if I go ind and do a sync on the system manually. Then it doesn't get
above 50MB/s in writeout (measured using dstat). But even that doesn't
sum up to 8 minutes .. 1.6GB at 50MB/s ..=> 32 s.

--
Jesper



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2009-03-25 18:47    [from the cache]
©2003-2014 Jasper Spaans. Advertise on this site