On Mon, Aug 10, 2015 at 01:23:48PM -0400, Jeff Moyer wrote:
> Unfortunately, I'm unable to reproduce your results (though my test
> setup uses SAS disks, not SATA). I tried with a 10 data disk md RAID5,
> with 32k and 128k chunk sizes. I modified the fio program to read/write
> multiples of the s
Christoph Hellwig writes:
> Hi Jeff,
>
> thanks for the detailed numbers!
>
> The bigger I/O size makes a drastic impact for Linux software RAID
> setups, for which this was a driver. For the RAID5/6 over SATA disks
> setups that I was benchmarking this it gives between 20 and 40% better
> seque
Christoph Hellwig writes:
> Hi Jeff,
>
> thanks for the detailed numbers!
>
> The bigger I/O size makes a drastic impact for Linux software RAID
> setups, for which this was a driver. For the RAID5/6 over SATA disks
> setups that I was benchmarking this it gives between 20 and 40% better
> seque
"Elliott, Robert (Server Storage)" writes:
>> Christoph, did you have some hardware where a higher max_sectors_kb
>> improved performance?
>
> I don't still have performance numbers, but the old default of
> 512 KiB was interfering with building large writes that RAID
> controllers can treat as
Hi Jeff,
thanks for the detailed numbers!
The bigger I/O size makes a drastic impact for Linux software RAID
setups, for which this was a driver. For the RAID5/6 over SATA disks
setups that I was benchmarking this it gives between 20 and 40% better
sequential read and write numbers.
Besides tho
hat.com
Adding linux-scsi...
> Subject: Re: [patch] Revert "block: remove artifical max_hw_sectors cap"
>
> Christoph Hellwig writes:
>
> > On Mon, Jul 20, 2015 at 03:17:07PM -0400, Jeff Moyer wrote:
> >> For SAN storage, we've seen initial write and
Christoph Hellwig writes:
> On Mon, Jul 20, 2015 at 03:17:07PM -0400, Jeff Moyer wrote:
>> For SAN storage, we've seen initial write and re-write performance drop
>> 25-50% across all I/O sizes. On locally attached storage, we've seen
>> regressions of 40% for all I/O types, but only for I/O siz
On Mon, Jul 20, 2015 at 03:17:07PM -0400, Jeff Moyer wrote:
> For SAN storage, we've seen initial write and re-write performance drop
> 25-50% across all I/O sizes. On locally attached storage, we've seen
> regressions of 40% for all I/O types, but only for I/O sizes larger than
> 1MB.
Workload,
Jens Axboe writes:
> On 07/20/2015 01:17 PM, Jeff Moyer wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> This reverts commit 34b48db66e08, which caused significant iozone
>> performance regressions and uncovered a silent data corruption
>> bug in at least one disk.
>>
>> For SAN storage, we've seen initial write an
On 07/20/2015 01:17 PM, Jeff Moyer wrote:
Hi,
This reverts commit 34b48db66e08, which caused significant iozone
performance regressions and uncovered a silent data corruption
bug in at least one disk.
For SAN storage, we've seen initial write and re-write performance drop
25-50% across all I
10 matches
Mail list logo
