Re: raid10 centos5 vs. centos6 300% worse random write performance

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

 



Stan Hoeppner <stan <at> hardwarefreak.com> writes:


> ~$ cat /sys/block/sda/queue/scheduler
> [CFQ] noop deadline
> Wes, yours will show CFQ probably as the default on RHEL/CentOS.  You'll
> want deadline for best seek and all around performance.  So:
> ~$ echo deadline > /sys/block/sda/queue/scheduler
> Add that to an init script or cron entry so it sets on every boot.
> Barriers are not an issue with this test.
> 

Thank you all. The issue is now closed.
RHEL5 was not doing cache flush right. It was only corrected in 2.6.32+
After removing O_SYNC from seekmark the results are now comparable.
Actually it is hard to find a linux raw device random R/W benchmark tool and
seekmark being the most popular fails when comparing pre and post 2.6.32
systems (unless you remove O_SYNC).




--
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