Re: stripe_cache_size ?

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Neil Brown wrote:

On Friday December 9, tmrbill@xxxxxxx wrote:
On Fri, 9 Dec 2005, Neil Brown wrote:

On Friday December 9, kylewong@xxxxxxxxxx wrote:
Hi,

I found that there's a new sysfs "stripe_cache_size" variable. I want to
know how does it affect RAID5 read / write performance (if any) ?
Please cc to me if possible, thanks.
Would you like to try it out and see?
Any value from about 10 to a few thousand should be perfectly safe,
though very large values may cause the system to run short of memory.

The memory used is approximately
  stripe_cache_size * 4K * number-of-drives
What??? I hope that's a typo...
1 - there's no use of the sysfs variable?

'stripe_cache_size' is the sysfs variable.  Yes, it is used.

2 - that's going to be huge, 128k * 4k * 10 = 5.1GB !!!

That is why I warned to limit it to a few thousand (128k is more than
a few thousand!).
Sorry, for some reason I read that as being in stripes instead of bytes, which would make it 128k for size only 2. My misread.

I just ran bonnie over a 5drive raid5 with stripe_cache_size varying
in from 256 to 4096 in a exponential sequence. (Numbers below 256
cause problems - I'll fix that).

Results:
256   cage,8G,42594,93,151807,38,50660,18,38610,91,172056,38,912.8,2,16,4356,99,+++++,+++,+++++,+++,4389,99,+++++,+++,14091,100
512   cage,8G,42145,92,186535,44,60659,21,42249,96,172057,37,971.9,2,16,4407,99,+++++,+++,+++++,+++,4452,99,+++++,+++,13909,99
1024   cage,8G,42250,92,210407,50,61254,21,42106,96,172575,37,903.1,2,16,4370,99,+++++,+++,+++++,+++,4395,99,+++++,+++,13809,100
2048   cage,8G,42458,92,229577,55,61762,21,41965,96,168950,36,837.9,2,16,4373,99,+++++,+++,+++++,+++,4460,99,+++++,+++,14084,100
4096   cage,8G,42305,92,250318,62,62192,21,42156,96,170692,38,981.8,3,16,4380,99,+++++,+++,+++++,+++,4426,99,+++++,+++,13723,99

Seq Write speed           ^
Increases substantially.
Seq Read                                             ^
Doesn't vary much.
Seq rewrite                         ^
improves a bit

So for that limited test, write speed is helped a lot, read speed
isn't.

Maybe I should try iozone...

NeilBrown



--
bill davidsen <davidsen@xxxxxxx>
 CTO TMR Associates, Inc
 Doing interesting things with small computers since 1979

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-raid" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

[Index of Archives]     [Linux RAID Wiki]     [ATA RAID]     [Linux SCSI Target Infrastructure]     [Linux Block]     [Linux IDE]     [Linux SCSI]     [Linux Hams]     [Device Mapper]     [Device Mapper Cryptographics]     [Kernel]     [Linux Admin]     [Linux Net]     [GFS]     [RPM]     [git]     [Yosemite Forum]


  Powered by Linux