On Mon, Aug 28, 2006 at 02:40:38PM +0000, Arn?r Kristj?nsson wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> I'm running a vserver running various LAMP servers. A while ago I  
> installed munin to check how the server was behaving at various  
> times. It turns out that the server has a LOT of iowait (up to 115)  
> when under load.
> 
> What I did was that I ran tiobench on the local HD and this is what I  
> got:
> --
> Sequential Reads
>                               File  Blk   Num                    
> Avg      Maximum      Lat%     Lat%    CPU
> Identifier                    Size  Size  Thr   Rate  (CPU%)   
> Latency    Latency      >2s      >10s    Eff
> ---------------------------- ------ ----- ---  ------ ------  
> --------- -----------  -------- -------- -----
> 2.6.14.3-vs2.0.1              100   4096    1  446.29 99.97%      
> 0.006        0.04   0.00000  0.00000   446
> 2.6.14.3-vs2.0.1              100   4096    2  728.70 396.4%      
> 0.007        0.05   0.00000  0.00000   184
> 2.6.14.3-vs2.0.1              100   4096    4  855.43 1587.%      
> 0.011        0.20   0.00000  0.00000    54
> 2.6.14.3-vs2.0.1              100   4096    8  839.09 2328.%      
> 0.013       56.08   0.00000  0.00000    36
> 
> Random Reads
>                               File  Blk   Num                    
> Avg      Maximum      Lat%     Lat%    CPU
> Identifier                    Size  Size  Thr   Rate  (CPU%)   
> Latency    Latency      >2s      >10s    Eff
> ---------------------------- ------ ----- ---  ------ ------  
> --------- -----------  -------- -------- -----
> 2.6.14.3-vs2.0.1              100   4096    1  418.79 96.48%      
> 0.006        0.02   0.00000  0.00000   434
> 2.6.14.3-vs2.0.1              100   4096    2  754.47 386.3%      
> 0.006        0.04   0.00000  0.00000   195
> 2.6.14.3-vs2.0.1              100   4096    4  839.15 1374.%      
> 0.010        0.05   0.00000  0.00000    61
> 2.6.14.3-vs2.0.1              100   4096    8  739.47 870.8%      
> 0.009        0.04   0.00000  0.00000    85
> 
> Sequential Writes
>                               File  Blk   Num                    
> Avg      Maximum      Lat%     Lat%    CPU
> Identifier                    Size  Size  Thr   Rate  (CPU%)   
> Latency    Latency      >2s      >10s    Eff
> ---------------------------- ------ ----- ---  ------ ------  
> --------- -----------  -------- -------- -----
> 2.6.14.3-vs2.0.1              100   4096    1    6.89 4.602%      
> 0.021        9.83   0.00000  0.00000   150
> 2.6.14.3-vs2.0.1              100   4096    2    9.12 15.32%      
> 0.031       80.06   0.00000  0.00000    60
> 2.6.14.3-vs2.0.1              100   4096    4    9.65 52.36%      
> 0.040        0.54   0.00000  0.00000    18
> 2.6.14.3-vs2.0.1              100   4096    8    9.92 102.5%      
> 0.066      100.08   0.00000  0.00000    10
> 
> Random Writes
>                               File  Blk   Num                    
> Avg      Maximum      Lat%     Lat%    CPU
> Identifier                    Size  Size  Thr   Rate  (CPU%)   
> Latency    Latency      >2s      >10s    Eff
> ---------------------------- ------ ----- ---  ------ ------  
> --------- -----------  -------- -------- -----
> 2.6.14.3-vs2.0.1              100   4096    1    0.34 0.148%      
> 0.010        0.03   0.00000  0.00000   230
> 2.6.14.3-vs2.0.1              100   4096    2    0.34 0.352%      
> 0.011        0.06   0.00000  0.00000    98
> 2.6.14.3-vs2.0.1              100   4096    4    0.37 1.033%      
> 0.017        0.07   0.00000  0.00000    36
> 2.6.14.3-vs2.0.1              100   4096    8    0.38 1.596%      
> 0.016        0.14   0.00000  0.00000    24
> --
> 
> I'm wondering; shouldn't the CPU % be lower on reads? 

well, I'm not sure what that data is trying to tell us,
because something like 2300 % CPU usage does not sound
like a sensible value to me, unless you have something
like 32 processors in that machine ...

> Is there a way to increase this performance?

sure, get better/faster disks, smarter controllers,
faster bus interfaces between cpu and i/o cards ...

sometimes even fine tuning of existing hardware can
make a big difference, like using the proper driver
with the 'right' options and/or avoiding partitions
which block disk access (when used simultaiously)

really depends on the setup

HTH,
Herbert

> A.
> _______________________________________________
> Vserver mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://list.linux-vserver.org/mailman/listinfo/vserver
_______________________________________________
Vserver mailing list
[email protected]
http://list.linux-vserver.org/mailman/listinfo/vserver

Reply via email to