On Fri, Nov 04 2016, Robert LeBlanc wrote: > On Thu, Nov 3, 2016 at 10:01 PM, NeilBrown <neilb@xxxxxxxx> wrote: >> On Fri, Nov 04 2016, Robert LeBlanc wrote: >> >>> This is always triggered for small reads preventing spreading the reads >>> across all available drives. The comments are also confusing as it is >>> supposed to apply only to 'far' layouts, but really only applies to 'near' >>> layouts. Since there isn't problems with 'far' layouts, there shouldn't >>> be a problem for 'near' layouts either. This change fairly distributes >>> reads across all drives where before only came from the first drive. >> >> Why is "fairness" an issue? >> The current code will use a device if it finds that it is completely >> idle. i.e. if nr_pending is 0. >> Why is that ever the wrong thing to do? > > The code also looks for a drive that is closest to the requested > sector which doesn't get a chance to happen without this patch. The > way this part of code is written, as soon as it finds a good disk, it > cuts out of the loop searching for a better disk. So it doesn't even > look for another disk. In a healthy array with array-disks X and -p > nX, this means that the first disk gets all the reads for small I/O. > Where nY is less than X, it may be covered up because the data is > naturally striped, but it still may be picking a disk that is farther > away from the selected sector causing extra head seeks. > >> Does your testing show that overall performance is improved? If so, >> that would certainly be useful. >> But it isn't clear (to me) that simply spreading the load more "fairly" >> is a worthy goal. > > I'll see if I have some mechanical drives somewhere to test (I've been > testing four loopback devices on a single NVME drive so you don't see > an improvement). You can see from the fio I posted [1] that before the > patch, one drive had all the I/O and after the patch the I/O was > distributed between all the drives (it doesn't have to be exactly > even, just not as skewed as it was before is good enough). I would > expect similar results to the 'far' tests done here [0]. Based on the > previous tests I did, when I saw this code, it just made complete > sense to me why we had great performance with 'far' and subpar > performance with 'near'. I'll come back with some results tomorrow. The whole point of the "far" layout is to provide better read performance than "near" because reads get spread out over all devices like they do with RAID0. So I wouldn't expect the make "near" close to "far", but it certainly doesn't hurt to improve it. As Shaohua notes, we you two different algorithms in RAID1, depending on whether there are rotational devices or not. Introducing similar logic to RAID10 would seem to make sense. Patches for performance improvements are always more convincing when they come with numbers. I'll look forward to your test results. Thanks, NeilBrown
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
