Billy Crook wrote:
I would suspect the default IO scheduler changed between those two
kernels. On both systems,
[bcrook@bcrook ~]$ cat /sys/block/sda/queue/scheduler
noop anticipatory deadline [cfq]
I bet you'll get closer matching results it you echo the name of the
.20 default scheduler to /sys/block/sda/queue/scheduler on .25
Though, it might be worth contrasting the performance of all options
on the .25 system.
You probably already know this but the io scheduler determines in what
order the heads move to get at what parts of the disk in what order.
It can greatly impact performance, so choosing the right scheduler,
and tuning it, can potentially help a lot.
Nice try, but no, both systems are running the deadline scheduler. CFQ?
I believe that means "poor performance for all". CFQ is fair, in that it
treats every request equally badly!
In all seriousness, CFQ is not for this kind of storage server.
Andrew
On Mon, Sep 8, 2008 at 08:00, AndrewL733 <AndrewL733@xxxxxxx> wrote:
I'm wondering if anybody has observed something similar to what I am seeing.
For the past year, my production storage systems have primarily been using
the 2.6.20.15 kernel (that's what we settled on a while back, and generally
I have been happy with it).
About 3 months ago, I began experimenting with the 2.6.25 kernel, because I
wanted to use some kernel-specific features that were only introduced in
2.6.23, 2.6.24 and 2.6.25.
My production systems typically consist of servers with two 3ware 9650
12-port RAID cards and 24 SATA drives, 12 drives on each card. For maximum
performance, we stripe together the two 12-drive "hardware RAIDS" using
Linux software RAID-0. My other hardware includes a very recent motherboard
based on the Intel 5400 chipset, with 4 Gen-2 x8 PCI-e slots and the 5482
Intel 3.2 Ghz Quad Core CPU with 4 GBs of RAM. In other words, it's very
capable hardware.
When comparing the 2.6.20.15 kernel with the 2.6.25 kernel, I have noticed
that:
For the underlying 3ware devices, all benchmarks -- dd, bonnie++, and my own
"torture test" that measures performance doing many random reads
simultaneously -- show that 2.6.25 kernel is about 10 percent faster than
the 2.6.20.15 kernel for both reading and writing.
However, when I stripe together those two 3ware devices with Linux software
RAID 0, with the 2.6.25 kernel I get about a 20 percent BOOST in
performance for WRITING compared to the 2.6.20.15 kernel, but I get about
an 8 percent DROP in READING performance with the 2.6.25 kernel.
My tests have been conducted using the in-kernel 3ware drivers, as well as
compiling 3ware's latest drivers for each kernel (so, in the latter case, I
have the same 3ware firmware and driver for either kernel). The results are
very similar either way.
Does anybody have any insights into what might be going on here? Does Linux
software RAID need to be configured differently in 2.6.25 to NOT lose READ
performance? Is there something that most be done to vm tuning with 2.6.25?
Is there a known issue with 2.6.25 that perhaps has been resolved with
2.6.26?
Regards,
Andrew
--
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
--
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
