Zhihui Zhang wrote: > Several times slower! The point is that writing less data performs > worse. So I call it weird.
Huh? You originally said:
> (1) Write each block fully and sequentially, ie. 8192 bytes.
>
> (2) I still write these blocks sequentially, but for each block I only
> write part of it.
...
> I find out the the performance of (2) is several times better than the
> performance of (1). Can anyone explain to me why this is the case?
If (2) is better than (1), then writing *less* data is faster. Which is
it, now?
Lars
> -Zhihui
>
> On Tue, 5 Mar 2002, Lars Eggert wrote:
>
>
>>Zhihui Zhang wrote:
>>
>>>Well, the core of my program is as follows (RANDOM(x) return a value
>>>between 0 and x):
>>>
>>> blocksize = 8192;
>>> write_size_low = 512;
>>>
>>> time(&time1);
>>> for (i = 0; i < write_count; i++) {
>>> write_size = write_size_low +
>>> RANDOM(write_size_high-write_size_low);
>>> write_size = roundup(write_size, DEV_BSIZE);
>>> if (testcase == 1)
>>> write_size = blocksize;
>>> write_block(rawfd, sectorno, buf, write_size);
>>> sectorno += blocksize / DEV_BSIZE;
>>> }
>>> time(&time2);
>>>
>>>If testcase is one, then the time elapsed (time2 - time1) is much less.
>>>
>>How "much less" in milliseconds?
>>
>>Also, in your original mail, you said you had 15,000 of these 8K blocks,
>>which is only 120MB or so. Use 150,000 or 1,500,000 and check your
>>results then.
>>
>>Lars
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>-Zhihui
>>>
>>>On Tue, 5 Mar 2002, Lars Eggert wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>I agree that it's probably caching at some level. You're only writing
>>>>about 120MB of data (and half that in your second case). Bump these to a
>>>>couple of GB and see what happens.
>>>>
>>>>Also, could you post your actual measurements?
>>>>
>>>>Lars
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Zhihui Zhang wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>The machine has 128M memory. I am doing physical I/O one block at a time,
>>>>>so there should be no memory copy.
>>>>>
>>>>>-Zhihui
>>>>>
>>>>>On Tue, 5 Mar 2002, Rogier R. Mulhuijzen wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>At 16:03 5-3-2002 -0500, Zhihui Zhang wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>On Tue, 5 Mar 2002, Julian Elischer wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>more writes fit in the disk's write cache?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>For (1), it writes 15000 * 8192 bytes in all. For (2), it writes 15000 *
>>>>>>>4096 bytes in all (assuming the random number distributes evenly between 0
>>>>>>>and 8192). So your suggestion does not make sense to me.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>How large is your buffercache? it might be that the 15000 * ~4096 roughly
>>>>>>matches with your cache, and 15000 * 8912 doesn't.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Case (1) would require a lot more physical IO in that case than case (2)
>>>>>>would require.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Doc
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>-Zhihui
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>On Tue, 5 Mar 2002, Zhihui Zhang wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>I am doing some raw I/O test on a seagate SCSI disk running FreeBSD 4.5.
>>>>>>>>>This situation is like this:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>+-----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+---+------
>>>>>>>>>| | | | | | | | | | | | ....
>>>>>>>>>+-----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+---+------
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Each block is of fixed size, say 8192 bytes. Now I have a user program
>>>>>>>>>writing each contiguously laid out block sequentially using /dev/daxxx
>>>>>>>>>interface. There are a lot of them, say 15000. I write the blocks in two
>>>>>>>>>ways (the data used in writing are garbage):
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>(1) Write each block fully and sequentially, ie. 8192 bytes.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>(2) I still write these blocks sequentially, but for each block I only
>>>>>>>>>write part of it. Exactly how many bytes are written inside each
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>block is
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>determinted by a random number between 512 .. 8192 bytes (rounded up a
>>>>>>>>>to multiple of 512 bytes).
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>I find out the the performance of (2) is several times better than the
>>>>>>>>>performance of (1). Can anyone explain to me why this is the case?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Thanks for any suggestions or hints.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>-Zhihui
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>>>>>>>with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>>>>>with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>>>with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>--
>>>>Lars Eggert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Information Sciences Institute
>>>>http://www.isi.edu/larse/ University of Southern California
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>>
>>--
>>Lars Eggert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Information Sciences Institute
>>http://www.isi.edu/larse/ University of Southern California
>>
>>
--
Lars Eggert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Information Sciences Institute
http://www.isi.edu/larse/ University of Southern California
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
