On Fri, Jan 27, 2012 at 9:24 AM, Zdenek Kabelac <zkabelac@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Dne 27.1.2012 16:28, Richard Sharpe napsal(a):
>> Actually, so far I have not used any thinp devices, since from reading
>> the documentation it seemed that, for what I am doing, I need to give
>> thinp a mirrored device for its metadata and a striped device for its
>> data, so I thought I would try just a striped device.
>>
>> Actually, I can cut that back to 8 devices in the stripe. I am using
>> 4kiB block sizes and writing 256kiB blocks in the dd requests and
>> there is no parity involved so there should be no read-modify-write
>> cycles.
>>
>> I imagine that if I push the write sizes up to a MB or more at a time
>> throughput will get better because at the moment each device is being
>> given 32kIB or 16kiB (a few devices) with DIRECTIO and with a larger
>> write size they will get more data at a time.
>>
>
> Well I cannot tell how big influence proper alignment has in your case, but
> it would be good to measure it in your case.
> Do you use data_block_size equal to stripe size (256KiB 512blocks ?)
I suspect not :-) However, I am not sure what you are asking. I
believe that the stripe size is 9 * 8 * 512B, or 36kiB because I think
I told it to use 8 sectors per device. This might be sub-optimal.
Based on that, I think it will take my write blocks, of 256kiB, and
write sectors that are (offset/512 + 256) mod 9 = {0, 1, 2, ... 8} to
{disk 0, disk 1, disk 2, ... disk 8}.
If I wanted perfectly strip-aligned writes then I think I should write
something like 32*9kiB rather than the 32*8kiB I am currently writing.
Is that what you are asking me?
--
Regards,
Richard Sharpe
--
dm-devel mailing list
dm-devel@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/dm-devel
