On Sat, Jun 23, 2007 at 03:03:33AM -0400, Jeff Garzik wrote: > Your disk configurations are quite radically different between the two > kernels (see attached diff for key highlights). > > The new behavior of the more recent kernel (551c012d7...) is that it now > fully drives your hardware :) The reset problems go away, NCQ is > enabled, and if you had 3.0Gbps drives (you don't) they would be driven > at a faster speed. > > Given that some drives might be better tuned for benchmarks in > non-queued mode, and that a major behavior difference is that your > drives are now NCQ-enabled, the first thing I would suggest you try is > disabling NCQ: > http://linux-ata.org/faq.html#ncq Thanks! That is indeed the difference that causes the drop of "hdparm -tT" that I observed. After setting /sys/block/sdX/device/queue_depth of all three drives to 1, I get again /dev/md2: Timing cached reads: 8252 MB in 2.00 seconds = 4130.59 MB/sec Timing buffered disk reads: 496 MB in 3.01 seconds = 164.88 MB/sec on 2.6.22-rc5. > Other indicators are the other changes in the "ahci 0000:00:1f.2: > flags:" line, which do affect other behaviors, though none so important > to RAID5 performance as NCQ, I would think. > > Turning on NCQ also potentially affects barrier behavior in RAID, though > I'm guessing that is not a factor here. Of course, I am not really interested in what "hdparm -tT" gives, but rather in a high performance during real-life use of the disks. Is it possible that the measurement with "hdparm -tT" returns a higher value for some setting, but that the over-all real-life performance drops? Also, the effect of this setting is nil for the individual drives. hdparm -tT /dev/sda gives me still around 65 MB/s. I don't understand why this setting has such a HUGE effect on RAID5 while the underlaying drives themselves don't seem affected. PS I'd like to do extensive testing with Bonnie++ to tune everything there is to tune. But bonnie likes to write/read files TWICE the amount of RAM I have. It therefore takes a LOT of time to run one test. Do you happen to know how I can limit the amount of RAM that the linux kernel sees to, say 500 MB? That should be enough to run in Single User mode but allow me to run the tests MUCH faster. (I have dual channel, four DIMM's of 1 GB each -- 2 GB per Core 2 die. Hopefully the fact that I have dual channel isn't going to be a problem when limiting the ram that the kernel sees.) -- Carlo Wood <carlo@xxxxxxxxxx> - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ide" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
