On 04/07/2012 12:50 PM, Peter Grandi wrote:
* Your storage layer does not seem to deliver parallel
operations: as the ~100MB/s overall 'ext4' speed and the
seek graphs show, in effect your 4+2 RAID6 performs in this
case as if it were a single drive with a single arm.
This is what lept out at me. I retried a very similar test (pulled
Icedtea 2.1, compiled it, tarred it, measured untar on our boxen). I
was getting a fairly consistent 4 +/- delta seconds.
Ignoring the rest of your post for brevity (basically to focus upon this
one issue), I suspect that the observed performance issue has more to do
with the RAID card, the disks, and the server than the file system.
100MB/s on some supposedly fast drives with a RAID card indicates that
either the RAID is badly implemented, the RAID layout is suspect, or
similar. He should be getting closer to N(data disks) * BW(single disk)
for something "close" to a streaming operation.
This isn't suggesting that he didn't hit some bug which happens to over
specify use of ag=0, but he definitely had a weak RAID system (at best).
If he retries with a more capable system, or one with a saner RAID
layout (16k chunk size? For spinning rust? Seriously? Short stroking
DB layout?), an agcount of 32 or higher, and still sees similar issues,
then I'd be more suspicious of a bug.
--
Joseph Landman, Ph.D
Founder and CEO
Scalable Informatics Inc.
email: landman@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
web : http://scalableinformatics.com
http://scalableinformatics.com/sicluster
phone: +1 734 786 8423 x121
fax : +1 866 888 3112
cell : +1 734 612 4615
_______________________________________________
xfs mailing list
xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
