On Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 11:29:34AM +0800, Dave Chinner wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 10:41:01AM +0800, Wu Fengguang wrote:
> > With default rsize=512k and NFS_MAX_READAHEAD=15, the current NFS
> > readahead size 512k*15=7680k is too large than necessary for typical
> > clients.
> >
> > On a e1000e--e1000e connection, I got the following numbers
> >
> > readahead size throughput
> > 16k 35.5 MB/s
> > 32k 54.3 MB/s
> > 64k 64.1 MB/s
> > 128k 70.5 MB/s
> > 256k 74.6 MB/s
> > rsize ==> 512k 77.4 MB/s
> > 1024k 85.5 MB/s
> > 2048k 86.8 MB/s
> > 4096k 87.9 MB/s
> > 8192k 89.0 MB/s
> > 16384k 87.7 MB/s
> >
> > So it seems that readahead_size=2*rsize (ie. keep two RPC requests in flight)
> > can already get near full NFS bandwidth.
> >
> > The test script is:
> >
> > #!/bin/sh
> >
> > file=/mnt/sparse
> > BDI=0:15
> >
> > for rasize in 16 32 64 128 256 512 1024 2048 4096 8192 16384
> > do
> > echo 3 > /proc/sys/vm/drop_caches
> > echo $rasize > /sys/devices/virtual/bdi/$BDI/read_ahead_kb
> > echo readahead_size=${rasize}k
> > dd if=$file of=/dev/null bs=4k count=1024000
> > done
>
> That's doing a cached read out of the server cache, right? You
It does not involve disk IO at least. (The sparse file dataset is
larger than server cache.)
> might find the results are different if the server has to read the
> file from disk. I would expect reads from the server cache not
> to require much readahead as there is no IO latency on the server
> side for the readahead to hide....
Sure the result will be different when disk IO is involved.
In this case I would expect the server admin to setup the optimal
readahead size for the disk(s).
It sounds silly to have
client_readahead_size > server_readahead_size
Thanks,
Fengguang
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxx For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>