John Robinson wrote:
: > Yes, I am aware of this. A single disk is able to do about
: >147 MB/s according to hdparm -t. However (a big "however"),
: >my usage pattern rarely issues big/sequential requests, and for more
: >random load the total throughput generated by all disks will be
: >much lower and the disks themselves become the bottleneck.
:
: Sure, but doing a resync does require huge sequential reads and writes.
Yes, but it does not need to be further throttled by using
a single CPU core.
: >Anyway, my SAS controller is connected by PCIe 2.0 x8, which equals
: >to (if I read Wikipedia correctly :-) 32 Gbit/s, i.e. 2 GByte/s.
: >So PCIe is not a bottleneck here. SAS is, and I am aware of that.
:
: Which is why the the md kernel threads appear to be using 100% of CPU,
: they're blocked waiting for I/O. (And possibly RAM, per my other reply
: to this thread.)
I don't think those threads are busy-waiting for I/O.
And other type of waiting does not appear as using 100% CPU.
Sincerely,
-Yenya
--
| Jan "Yenya" Kasprzak <kas at {fi.muni.cz - work | yenya.net - private}> |
| GPG: ID 1024/D3498839 Fingerprint 0D99A7FB206605D7 8B35FCDE05B18A5E |
| http://www.fi.muni.cz/~kas/ Journal: http://www.fi.muni.cz/~kas/blog/ |
Please don't top post and in particular don't attach entire digests to your
mail or we'll all soon be using bittorrent to read the list. --Alan Cox
--
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
