2012/9/12, Fengguang Wu <[email protected]>: > On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 08:12:40AM +0900, Namjae Jeon wrote: >> >> >> >> To be frank, no realistic NFS servers will use USB disk as backing >> >> storage. So that rational for reducing "initial" delays is weak. >> >> Continuous write performance to HDD is much more important. Do you >> >> have numbers for that? >> > >> > Actually, we use USB HDD and USB Flash devices at NFS server. >> > There can be other similar users as well. So it might be useful to >> > provide this tuning feature other. >> > As default value is zero, it is disabled by default and it should not >> > impact normal writeback. >> > >> > I will share large file writes test result on NFS client on USB HDD >> > with/without tuning with patch. >> Hi. Wu. >> I share 1GB continous write test result. >> >> -> create a 1000 MB file >> For continuous write - create 1 GB file >> >> RecSize WriteSpeed >> 10485760 10.47MB/sec >> 1048576 10.35MB/sec >> 524288 10.48MB/sec >> 262144 10.48MB/sec >> 131072 10.52MB/sec >> 65536 10.56MB/sec >> 32768 10.64MB/sec >> 16384 10.31MB/sec >> 8192 10.52MB/sec >> 4096 10.45MB/sec >> >> I will update changelog in patch. > > Thanks! What's the server side setting I missed server side setting.. I set dirty_background_centisecs to 1 sec. > and can you give a comparison of different background writeback thresholds? Okay, I will measure peformance per setting value of dirty_background_centisecs in nfs server.
This is this patch's > target use cases, after all. Sure. Thanks. > > Thanks, > Fengguang > -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
