Dne 27.1.2012 16:03, Richard Sharpe napsal(a):
On Fri, Jan 27, 2012 at 12:52 AM, Christoph Hellwig<hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 05:06:42PM -0800, Richard Sharpe wrote:
Why do I see such a big performance difference? Does writing to the
device also use the page cache if I don't specify DIRECT IO?
Yes. Trying adding conv=fdatasync to both versions to get more
realistic results.
Thank you for that advice. I am comparing btrfs vs rolling my own
thing using the new dm thin-provisioning approach to get something
with resilient metadata, but I need to support two different types of
IO, one that uses directio and one that can take advantage of the page
cache.
So far, btrfs gives me around 800MB/s with a similar setup (can't get
exactly the same setup) without DIRECTIO and 450MB/s with DIRECTIO. a
dm striped setup is giving me about 10% better throughput without
DIRECTIO but only about 45% of the performance with DIRECTIO.
You've mentioned you are using thinp device with stripping - do you have
stripes properly aligned on data-block-size of thinp device ?
(I think 9 disks are properly quite hard to align somehow on 3.2 kernel,
since data block size needs to be power of 2 - I think 3.3 will have this
relaxed to page size boundary.
Zdenek
--
dm-devel mailing list
dm-devel@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/dm-devel
