Hello Dan, hello Neil, thanks for your help!
On Tuesday 16 October 2007 19:31:08 Dan Williams wrote: > On Mon, 2007-10-15 at 08:03 -0700, Bernd Schubert wrote: > > Hi, > > > > in order to tune raid performance I did some benchmarks with and > > without the > > stripe queue patches. 2.6.22 is only for comparison to rule out other > > effects, e.g. the new scheduler, etc. > > Thanks for testing! > > > It seems there is a regression with these patch regarding the re-write > > performance, as you can see its almost 50% of what it should be. > > > > write re-write read re-read > > 480844.26 448723.48 707927.55 706075.02 (2.6.22 w/o SQ patches) > > 487069.47 232574.30 709038.28 707595.09 (2.6.23 with SQ patches) > > 469865.75 438649.88 711211.92 703229.00 (2.6.23 without SQ patches) > > A quick way to verify that it is a fairness issue is to simply not > promote full stripe writes to their own list, debug patch follows: I tested with that and the rewrite performance is better, but still not perfect: write re-write read re-read 461794.14 377896.27 701793.81 693018.02 [...] > I made a rough attempt at multi-threading raid5[1] a while back. > However, this configuration only helps affinity, it does not address the > cases where the load needs to be further rebalanced between cpus. > > > Thanks, > > Bernd > > [1] http://marc.info/?l=linux-raid&m=117262977831208&w=2 > Note this implementation incorrectly handles the raid6 spare_page, we > would need a spare_page per cpu. Ah great, I will test this on Friday. Thanks, Bernd -- Bernd Schubert Q-Leap Networks GmbH - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-raid" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
