All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Stefan Ring <stefanrin@gmail.com>
To: stan@hardwarefreak.com
Cc: xfs@oss.sgi.com
Subject: Re: A little RAID experiment
Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2012 14:32:35 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAAxjCEy2Yj=XWctNg2gACbFy81aTu70YJ13Ee8G6-E3Tqvvs7g@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <50068EC5.5020704@hardwarefreak.com>

> Given the LSI 1078 based RAID card with 1 thread runs circles around the
> P2000 with 4, 8, or 16 threads, and never stalls, with responses less
> than 1ms, meaning all writes hit cache, it would seem other workloads
> are hitting the P2000 simultaneously with your test, limiting your
> performance.  Either that or some kind of quotas have been set on the
> LUNs to prevent one host from saturating the controllers.  Or both.

Maybe there exists a load quota of some kind as you are suggesting,
but from what I've seen from screenshots in the installation manuals,
I don't remember any of this.

> This is why I asked about exclusive access.  Without it your results for
> the P2000 are literally worthless.  Lacking complete configuration info
> puts you in the same boat.  You simply can't draw any realistic
> conclusions about the P2000 performance without having complete control
> of the device for dedicated testing purposes.

That's a reasonable suggestion. Alas, I'm not expecting to get that
level of access to the device. I know for a fact though, that it is
only connected to a single machine, which is otherwise completely idle
and controlled by "us" (the company I work for). But even so, I cannot
set up XFS there on a whim because it's in preparation for production
use.

> You have such control of the P400 and LSI do you not?  Concentrate your
> testing and comparisons on those.

The period of full control over the P400 is over, but at least I know
how it is configured. The LSI is in production (meaning: untouchable),
but seems reasonably configured.

At least I have some multi-threaded results from the other two machines:

LSI:

4 threads

[   2s] reads: 0.00 MB/s writes: 63.08 MB/s fsyncs: 0.00/s response
time: 0.452ms (95%)
[   4s] reads: 0.00 MB/s writes: 34.26 MB/s fsyncs: 0.00/s response
time: 1.660ms (95%)
[   6s] reads: 0.00 MB/s writes: 33.92 MB/s fsyncs: 0.00/s response
time: 1.478ms (95%)
[   8s] reads: 0.00 MB/s writes: 36.34 MB/s fsyncs: 0.00/s response
time: 1.589ms (95%)
[  10s] reads: 0.00 MB/s writes: 34.99 MB/s fsyncs: 0.00/s response
time: 1.621ms (95%)
[  12s] reads: 0.00 MB/s writes: 36.41 MB/s fsyncs: 0.00/s response
time: 1.639ms (95%)

8 threads

[   2s] reads: 0.00 MB/s writes: 45.34 MB/s fsyncs: 0.00/s response
time: 2.749ms (95%)
[   4s] reads: 0.00 MB/s writes: 32.15 MB/s fsyncs: 0.00/s response
time: 4.579ms (95%)
[   6s] reads: 0.00 MB/s writes: 33.64 MB/s fsyncs: 0.00/s response
time: 4.644ms (95%)
[   8s] reads: 0.00 MB/s writes: 35.20 MB/s fsyncs: 0.00/s response
time: 4.131ms (95%)
[  10s] reads: 0.00 MB/s writes: 33.88 MB/s fsyncs: 0.00/s response
time: 3.876ms (95%)
[  12s] reads: 0.00 MB/s writes: 33.65 MB/s fsyncs: 0.00/s response
time: 4.929ms (95%)

16 threads

[   2s] reads: 0.00 MB/s writes: 36.90 MB/s fsyncs: 0.00/s response
time: 3.510ms (95%)
[   4s] reads: 0.00 MB/s writes: 35.36 MB/s fsyncs: 0.00/s response
time: 8.629ms (95%)
[   6s] reads: 0.00 MB/s writes: 32.27 MB/s fsyncs: 0.00/s response
time: 10.091ms (95%)
[   8s] reads: 0.00 MB/s writes: 34.79 MB/s fsyncs: 0.00/s response
time: 9.499ms (95%)
[  10s] reads: 0.00 MB/s writes: 35.62 MB/s fsyncs: 0.00/s response
time: 8.801ms (95%)
[  12s] reads: 0.00 MB/s writes: 34.64 MB/s fsyncs: 0.00/s response
time: 9.488ms (95%)

... and so on. Nothing noteworthy after that.

Response time is higher, throughput stays the same.

P400:

4 threads

[   2s] reads: 0.00 MB/s writes: 33.59 MB/s fsyncs: 0.00/s response
time: 0.255ms (95%)
[   4s] reads: 0.00 MB/s writes: 5.11 MB/s fsyncs: 0.00/s response
time: 12.853ms (95%)
[   6s] reads: 0.00 MB/s writes: 5.45 MB/s fsyncs: 0.00/s response
time: 0.677ms (95%)
[   8s] reads: 0.00 MB/s writes: 5.16 MB/s fsyncs: 0.00/s response
time: 0.902ms (95%)
[  10s] reads: 0.00 MB/s writes: 4.56 MB/s fsyncs: 0.00/s response
time: 58.242ms (95%)
[  12s] reads: 0.00 MB/s writes: 5.30 MB/s fsyncs: 0.00/s response
time: 0.669ms (95%)
[  14s] reads: 0.00 MB/s writes: 5.22 MB/s fsyncs: 0.00/s response
time: 0.743ms (95%)
[  16s] reads: 0.00 MB/s writes: 4.73 MB/s fsyncs: 0.00/s response
time: 57.877ms (95%)
[  18s] reads: 0.00 MB/s writes: 4.39 MB/s fsyncs: 0.00/s response
time: 58.417ms (95%)
[  20s] reads: 0.00 MB/s writes: 4.56 MB/s fsyncs: 0.00/s response
time: 57.704ms (95%)
[  22s] reads: 0.00 MB/s writes: 4.81 MB/s fsyncs: 0.00/s response
time: 57.429ms (95%)
[  24s] reads: 0.00 MB/s writes: 4.53 MB/s fsyncs: 0.00/s response
time: 57.895ms (95%)

Some response time fluctuation at first, but it settles quickly.

8 threads

[   2s] reads: 0.00 MB/s writes: 38.61 MB/s fsyncs: 0.00/s response
time: 0.969ms (95%)
[   4s] reads: 0.00 MB/s writes: 4.98 MB/s fsyncs: 0.00/s response
time: 59.886ms (95%)
[   6s] reads: 0.00 MB/s writes: 4.69 MB/s fsyncs: 0.00/s response
time: 60.300ms (95%)
[   8s] reads: 0.00 MB/s writes: 4.57 MB/s fsyncs: 0.00/s response
time: 60.246ms (95%)
[  10s] reads: 0.00 MB/s writes: 4.46 MB/s fsyncs: 0.00/s response
time: 60.626ms (95%)
[  12s] reads: 0.00 MB/s writes: 4.46 MB/s fsyncs: 0.00/s response
time: 60.445ms (95%)
[  14s] reads: 0.00 MB/s writes: 4.61 MB/s fsyncs: 0.00/s response
time: 60.662ms (95%)
[  16s] reads: 0.00 MB/s writes: 4.35 MB/s fsyncs: 0.00/s response
time: 60.571ms (95%)
[  18s] reads: 0.00 MB/s writes: 4.87 MB/s fsyncs: 0.00/s response
time: 60.156ms (95%)
[  20s] reads: 0.00 MB/s writes: 4.77 MB/s fsyncs: 0.00/s response
time: 60.210ms (95%)
[  22s] reads: 0.00 MB/s writes: 4.58 MB/s fsyncs: 0.00/s response
time: 60.463ms (95%)
[  24s] reads: 0.00 MB/s writes: 4.65 MB/s fsyncs: 0.00/s response
time: 60.264ms (95%)

16 threads

[   2s] reads: 0.00 MB/s writes: 17.35 MB/s fsyncs: 0.00/s response
time: 7.764ms (95%)
[   4s] reads: 0.00 MB/s writes: 5.17 MB/s fsyncs: 0.00/s response
time: 62.655ms (95%)
[   6s] reads: 0.00 MB/s writes: 5.15 MB/s fsyncs: 0.00/s response
time: 62.749ms (95%)
[   8s] reads: 0.00 MB/s writes: 4.89 MB/s fsyncs: 0.00/s response
time: 63.258ms (95%)
[  10s] reads: 0.00 MB/s writes: 4.98 MB/s fsyncs: 0.00/s response
time: 62.862ms (95%)
[  12s] reads: 0.00 MB/s writes: 5.26 MB/s fsyncs: 0.00/s response
time: 63.032ms (95%)
[  14s] reads: 0.00 MB/s writes: 5.27 MB/s fsyncs: 0.00/s response
time: 62.599ms (95%)
[  16s] reads: 0.00 MB/s writes: 4.80 MB/s fsyncs: 0.00/s response
time: 63.088ms (95%)
[  18s] reads: 0.00 MB/s writes: 4.84 MB/s fsyncs: 0.00/s response
time: 63.239ms (95%)
[  20s] reads: 0.00 MB/s writes: 5.24 MB/s fsyncs: 0.00/s response
time: 62.712ms (95%)
[  22s] reads: 0.00 MB/s writes: 4.25 MB/s fsyncs: 0.00/s response
time: 63.619ms (95%)
[  24s] reads: 0.00 MB/s writes: 4.90 MB/s fsyncs: 0.00/s response
time: 63.202ms (95%)

Pretty boring.

_______________________________________________
xfs mailing list
xfs@oss.sgi.com
http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs

  reply	other threads:[~2012-07-18 12:32 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 41+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2012-04-25  8:07 A little RAID experiment Stefan Ring
2012-04-25 14:17 ` Roger Willcocks
2012-04-25 16:23   ` Stefan Ring
2012-04-27 14:03     ` Stan Hoeppner
2012-04-26  8:53   ` Stefan Ring
2012-04-27 15:10     ` Stan Hoeppner
2012-04-27 15:28     ` Joe Landman
2012-04-28  4:42       ` Stan Hoeppner
2012-04-27 13:50 ` Stan Hoeppner
2012-05-01 10:46   ` Stefan Ring
2012-05-30 11:07     ` Stefan Ring
2012-05-31  1:30       ` Stan Hoeppner
2012-05-31  6:44         ` Stefan Ring
2012-07-16 19:57 ` Stefan Ring
2012-07-16 20:03   ` Stefan Ring
2012-07-16 20:05     ` Stefan Ring
2012-07-16 21:27   ` Stan Hoeppner
2012-07-16 21:58     ` Stefan Ring
2012-07-17  1:39       ` Stan Hoeppner
2012-07-17  5:26         ` Dave Chinner
2012-07-18  2:18           ` Stan Hoeppner
2012-07-18  6:44             ` Stefan Ring
2012-07-18  7:09               ` Stan Hoeppner
2012-07-18  7:22                 ` Stefan Ring
2012-07-18 10:24                   ` Stan Hoeppner
2012-07-18 12:32                     ` Stefan Ring [this message]
2012-07-18 12:37                       ` Stefan Ring
2012-07-19  3:08                         ` Stan Hoeppner
2012-07-25  9:29                           ` Stefan Ring
2012-07-25 10:00                             ` Stan Hoeppner
2012-07-25 10:08                               ` Stefan Ring
2012-07-25 11:00                                 ` Stan Hoeppner
2012-07-26  8:32                             ` Dave Chinner
2012-09-11 16:37                               ` Stefan Ring
2012-07-16 22:16     ` Stefan Ring
2012-10-10 14:57 ` Stefan Ring
2012-10-10 21:27   ` Dave Chinner
2012-10-10 22:01     ` Stefan Ring
2012-04-26 22:33 Richard Scobie
2012-04-27 21:30 ` Emmanuel Florac
2012-04-28  4:15   ` Richard Scobie

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to='CAAxjCEy2Yj=XWctNg2gACbFy81aTu70YJ13Ee8G6-E3Tqvvs7g@mail.gmail.com' \
    --to=stefanrin@gmail.com \
    --cc=stan@hardwarefreak.com \
    --cc=xfs@oss.sgi.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.