> I used a blocksize of 350k as my graphes shows me that this is the > average workload we have on the journal. Pretty interesting metric Stefan. Has anyone seen the same behaviour? –––– Sébastien Han Cloud Engineer "Always give 100%. Unless you're giving blood.” Phone: +33 (0)1 49 70 99 72 Mail: sebastien.han@xxxxxxxxxxxx Address : 10, rue de la Victoire - 75009 Paris Web : www.enovance.com - Twitter : @enovance On 22 Nov 2013, at 02:37, Mark Nelson <mark.nelson@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 11/21/2013 02:36 AM, Stefan Priebe - Profihost AG wrote: >> Hi, >> >> Am 21.11.2013 01:29, schrieb mdw@xxxxxxxxxxxx: >>> On Tue, Nov 19, 2013 at 09:02:41AM +0100, Stefan Priebe wrote: >>> ... >>>>> You might be able to vary this behavior by experimenting with sdparm, >>>>> smartctl or other tools, or possibly with different microcode in the drive. >>>> Which values or which settings do you think of? >>> ... >>> >>> Off-hand, I don't know. Probably the first thing would be >>> to compare the configuration of your 520 & 530; anything that's >>> different is certainly worth investigating. >>> >>> This should display all pages, >>> sdparm --all --long /dev/sdX >>> the 520 only appears to have 3 pages, which can be fetched directly w/ >>> sdparm --page=ca --long /dev/sdX >>> sdparm --page=co --long /dev/sdX >>> sdparm --page=rw --long /dev/sdX >>> >>> The sample machine I'm looking has an intel 520, and on ours, >>> most options show as 0 except for >>> AWRE 1 [cha: n, def: 1] Automatic write reallocation enabled >>> WCE 1 [cha: y, def: 1] Write cache enable >>> DRA 1 [cha: n, def: 1] Disable read ahead >>> GLTSD 1 [cha: n, def: 1] Global logging target save disable >>> BTP -1 [cha: n, def: -1] Busy timeout period (100us) >>> ESTCT 30 [cha: n, def: 30] Extended self test completion time (sec) >>> Perhaps that's an interesting data point to compare with yours. >>> >>> Figuring out if you have up-to-date intel firmware appears to require >>> burning and running an iso image from >>> https://downloadcenter.intel.com/Detail_Desc.aspx?agr=Y&DwnldID=18455 >>> >>> The results of sdparm --page=<whatever> --long /dev/sdc >>> show the intel firmware, but this labels it better: >>> smartctl -i /dev/sdc >>> Our 520 has firmware "400i" loaded. >> >> Firmware is up2date and all values are the same. I expect that the 520 >> firmware just ignores CMD_FLUSH commands and the 530 does not. > > For those of you that don't follow LKML, there is some interesting discussion going on regarding this same issue (Hi Stefan!) > > https://lkml.org/lkml/2013/11/20/158 > > Can anyone think of a reasonable (ie not yanking power out) way to test what CMD_FLUSH is actually doing? I have some 520s in our test rig I can play with. Otherwise, maybe an Intel engineer can chime in and let us know what's going on? > >> >> Greets, >> Stefan >> _______________________________________________ >> ceph-users mailing list >> ceph-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx >> http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com >> > > _______________________________________________ > ceph-users mailing list > ceph-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx > http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com _______________________________________________ ceph-users mailing list ceph-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com
 |