On Tue, Apr 20, 2010 at 02:19:13PM -0700, Tracy Reed wrote:
> > How do you know this is a mis-aligned sectors issue? Is this what your
> > AOE vendor is telling you ?
>
> No AoE vendor involved. I am using the free stuff. I think it is a
> misalignment issue because during a purely write test it
On Tue, Apr 20, 2010 at 12:39:52PM -0700, Tracy Reed wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 20, 2010 at 11:49:55AM +0300, Pasi Kärkkäinen spake thusly:
> > Please paste your domU partition table:
> > sfdisk -d /dev/xvda
>
> I have tried many different things including dd straight to the raw
> unpartitioned device.
On Tue, Apr 20, 2010 at 01:00:04PM -0700, Tracy Reed wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 20, 2010 at 11:49:55AM +0300, Pasi Kärkkäinen spake thusly:
> > Are you using filesystems on normal partitions, or LVM in the domU?
> > I'm pretty sure this is a domU partitioning problem.
>
> Also: What changes in the view
On Tuesday, 20 April 2010 at 13:00, Tracy Reed wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 20, 2010 at 11:49:55AM +0300, Pasi Kärkkäinen spake thusly:
> > Are you using filesystems on normal partitions, or LVM in the domU?
> > I'm pretty sure this is a domU partitioning problem.
>
> Also: What changes in the view of th
On Tue, Apr 20, 2010 at 01:41:51PM -0700, Brendan Cully spake thusly:
> You could also be limited by the size of the block request ring (I
> believe the ring is normally only one page) -- the ring needs to be
> large enough to handle the bandwidth delay product, and AoE means the
> delay is probabl
On Tue, Apr 20, 2010 at 04:25:19PM -0400, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk spake thusly:
> The DomU disk from the Dom0 perspective is using 'phy' which means
> there is no caching in Dom0 for that disk (but it is in DomU).
That is fine. I don't particularly want caching in dom0.
> Caching should be done in
On Tue, Apr 20, 2010 at 11:49:55AM +0300, Pasi Kärkkäinen spake thusly:
> Are you using filesystems on normal partitions, or LVM in the domU?
> I'm pretty sure this is a domU partitioning problem.
Also: What changes in the view of the partitioning between domU and
dom0? Wouldn't a partitioning er
On Tue, Apr 20, 2010 at 10:54:42PM +0300, Pasi Kärkkäinen spake thusly:
> Please try with "bs=1024k" and maybe with "bs=64k" aswell.
>
> 4k blocksize transfer will always be slower in domU than in dom0
> since virtual disk abstraction makes some overhead, which is more
> visible with small blocks
On Tue, Apr 20, 2010 at 11:49:55AM +0300, Pasi Kärkkäinen spake thusly:
> Please paste your domU partition table:
> sfdisk -d /dev/xvda
I have tried many different things including dd straight to the raw
unpartitioned device. That should not be affected by
partitioning/lvm/filesystem problems righ
On Tue, Apr 20, 2010 at 11:49:55AM +0300, Pasi Kärkkäinen wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 20, 2010 at 01:09:58AM -0700, Tracy Reed wrote:
> > Anyone know why my xen xvda devices would be doing (apparently)
> > unaligned writes to my SAN causing horrible performance and massive
> > seeking and lots of reading
On Tue, Apr 20, 2010 at 01:09:58AM -0700, Tracy Reed wrote:
> Anyone know why my xen xvda devices would be doing (apparently)
> unaligned writes to my SAN causing horrible performance and massive
> seeking and lots of reading for page cache backfill? BUT writing to
> the device in the dom0 is very
11 matches
Mail list logo
