* pm8001 performance degradation? @ 2011-07-11 19:06 ersatz splatt 2011-07-12 1:27 ` Jack Wang 0 siblings, 1 reply; 8+ messages in thread From: ersatz splatt @ 2011-07-11 19:06 UTC (permalink / raw) To: jack_wang, lindar_liu; +Cc: linux-scsi Hello Jack Wang and Lindar Liu, I am running the pm8001 driver (on applicable hardware including a several core SMP server). When I run on an older kernel -- e.g. 2.6.34.7 -- I get about 73Kiops via an fio test. When I run a current kernel -- e.g. 2.6.39.2 -- on the same system and same storage I get about 15Kiops running the same fio test. Perhaps something has changes in the kernel that is not being accounted for? Are you two still maintaining this driver? Regards, David ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* Re: pm8001 performance degradation? 2011-07-11 19:06 pm8001 performance degradation? ersatz splatt @ 2011-07-12 1:27 ` Jack Wang 2011-07-12 2:44 ` ersatz splatt 0 siblings, 1 reply; 8+ messages in thread From: Jack Wang @ 2011-07-12 1:27 UTC (permalink / raw) To: 'ersatz splatt', lindar_liu; +Cc: linux-scsi > Hello Jack Wang and Lindar Liu, > > > I am running the pm8001 driver (on applicable hardware including a > several core SMP server). > > When I run on an older kernel -- e.g. 2.6.34.7 -- I get about 73Kiops > via an fio test. > > When I run a current kernel -- e.g. 2.6.39.2 -- on the same system and > same storage I get about 15Kiops running the same fio test. > > Perhaps something has changes in the kernel that is not being accounted for? > Are you two still maintaining this driver? > > > Regards, > David [Jack Wang] Could you give your detailed topology, I will later try to investigate the performance issue, but as I remember an Intel developer reports in mailist some changes in block layer lead to JBOD performance degradation. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* Re: pm8001 performance degradation? 2011-07-12 1:27 ` Jack Wang @ 2011-07-12 2:44 ` ersatz splatt 2011-07-12 2:46 ` ersatz splatt 2011-07-12 4:18 ` Jack Wang 0 siblings, 2 replies; 8+ messages in thread From: ersatz splatt @ 2011-07-12 2:44 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Jack Wang; +Cc: lindar_liu, linux-scsi I have one HBA connected directly to 4 SAS drives ... using a single 1 to four cable. On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 6:27 PM, Jack Wang <jack_wang@usish.com> wrote: >> Hello Jack Wang and Lindar Liu, >> >> >> I am running the pm8001 driver (on applicable hardware including a >> several core SMP server). >> >> When I run on an older kernel -- e.g. 2.6.34.7 -- I get about 73Kiops >> via an fio test. >> >> When I run a current kernel -- e.g. 2.6.39.2 -- on the same system and >> same storage I get about 15Kiops running the same fio test. >> >> Perhaps something has changes in the kernel that is not being accounted > for? >> Are you two still maintaining this driver? >> >> >> Regards, >> David > [Jack Wang] Could you give your detailed topology, I will later try to > investigate the performance issue, but as I remember an Intel developer > reports in mailist some changes in block layer lead to JBOD performance > degradation. > > -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-scsi" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* Re: pm8001 performance degradation? 2011-07-12 2:44 ` ersatz splatt @ 2011-07-12 2:46 ` ersatz splatt 2011-07-12 4:18 ` Jack Wang 1 sibling, 0 replies; 8+ messages in thread From: ersatz splatt @ 2011-07-12 2:46 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Jack Wang; +Cc: lindar_liu, linux-scsi Please let me know if you would like any more details. Can you point to the degradation reference in earlier mail? On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 7:44 PM, ersatz splatt <ersatzsplatt@gmail.com> wrote: > I have one HBA connected directly to 4 SAS drives ... using a single 1 > to four cable. > > > On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 6:27 PM, Jack Wang <jack_wang@usish.com> wrote: >>> Hello Jack Wang and Lindar Liu, >>> >>> >>> I am running the pm8001 driver (on applicable hardware including a >>> several core SMP server). >>> >>> When I run on an older kernel -- e.g. 2.6.34.7 -- I get about 73Kiops >>> via an fio test. >>> >>> When I run a current kernel -- e.g. 2.6.39.2 -- on the same system and >>> same storage I get about 15Kiops running the same fio test. >>> >>> Perhaps something has changes in the kernel that is not being accounted >> for? >>> Are you two still maintaining this driver? >>> >>> >>> Regards, >>> David >> [Jack Wang] Could you give your detailed topology, I will later try to >> investigate the performance issue, but as I remember an Intel developer >> reports in mailist some changes in block layer lead to JBOD performance >> degradation. >> >> > -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-scsi" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* RE: pm8001 performance degradation? 2011-07-12 2:44 ` ersatz splatt 2011-07-12 2:46 ` ersatz splatt @ 2011-07-12 4:18 ` Jack Wang 2011-07-12 19:34 ` ersatz splatt 1 sibling, 1 reply; 8+ messages in thread From: Jack Wang @ 2011-07-12 4:18 UTC (permalink / raw) To: 'ersatz splatt'; +Cc: lindar_liu, linux-scsi Could you share your fio test scripts? disk detail and HBA firmware version are also wanted if available. Jack > > I have one HBA connected directly to 4 SAS drives ... using a single 1 > to four cable. > > > On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 6:27 PM, Jack Wang <jack_wang@usish.com> wrote: > >> Hello Jack Wang and Lindar Liu, > >> > >> > >> I am running the pm8001 driver (on applicable hardware including a > >> several core SMP server). > >> > >> When I run on an older kernel -- e.g. 2.6.34.7 -- I get about 73Kiops > >> via an fio test. > >> > >> When I run a current kernel -- e.g. 2.6.39.2 -- on the same system and > >> same storage I get about 15Kiops running the same fio test. > >> > >> Perhaps something has changes in the kernel that is not being accounted > > for? > >> Are you two still maintaining this driver? > >> > >> > >> Regards, > >> David > > [Jack Wang] Could you give your detailed topology, I will later try to > > investigate the performance issue, but as I remember an Intel developer > > reports in mailist some changes in block layer lead to JBOD performance > > degradation. > > > > > -- > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-scsi" in > the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-scsi" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* Re: pm8001 performance degradation? 2011-07-12 4:18 ` Jack Wang @ 2011-07-12 19:34 ` ersatz splatt 2011-07-13 3:15 ` ersatz splatt 0 siblings, 1 reply; 8+ messages in thread From: ersatz splatt @ 2011-07-12 19:34 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Jack Wang; +Cc: lindar_liu, linux-scsi Jack, fio script is: [global] rw=read direct=1 time_based runtime=1m ioengine=libaio iodepth=32 bs=512 [dB] filename=/dev/sdb cpus_allowed=2 [dC] filename=/dev/sdc cpus_allowed=3 [dD] filename=/dev/sdd cpus_allowed=4 [dE] filename=/dev/sde cpus_allowed=5 (keep in mind this is a system with several cores) Before running the script I (of course) shut down coalescing: echo "2"> /sys/block/sdb/queue/nomerges echo "2"> /sys/block/sdc/queue/nomerges echo "2"> /sys/block/sdd/queue/nomerges echo "2"> /sys/block/sde/queue/nomerges echo noop > /sys/block/sdb/queue/scheduler echo noop > /sys/block/sdc/queue/scheduler echo noop > /sys/block/sdd/queue/scheduler echo noop > /sys/block/sde/queue/scheduler As you know, disk details are shown in the log on driver load: pm8001 0000:05:00.0: pm8001: driver version 0.1.36 pm8001 0000:05:00.0: PCI INT A -> GSI 16 (level, low) -> IRQ 16 scsi4 : pm8001 scsi 4:0:0:0: Direct-Access SEAGATE ST9146803SS 0004 PQ: 0 ANSI: 5 sd 4:0:0:0: [sdb] 286749488 512-byte logical blocks: (146 GB/136 GiB) sd 4:0:0:0: Attached scsi generic sg1 type 0 sd 4:0:0:0: [sdb] Write Protect is off sd 4:0:0:0: [sdb] Write cache: enabled, read cache: enabled, supports DPO and FUA sdb: unknown partition table sd 4:0:0:0: [sdb] Attached SCSI disk scsi 4:0:1:0: Direct-Access SEAGATE ST9146803SS 0006 PQ: 0 ANSI: 5 sd 4:0:1:0: Attached scsi generic sg2 type 0 sd 4:0:1:0: [sdc] 286749488 512-byte logical blocks: (146 GB/136 GiB) sd 4:0:1:0: [sdc] Write Protect is off sd 4:0:1:0: [sdc] Write cache: enabled, read cache: enabled, supports DPO and FUA sdc: unknown partition table sd 4:0:1:0: [sdc] Attached SCSI disk scsi 4:0:2:0: Direct-Access SEAGATE ST9146803SS 0004 PQ: 0 ANSI: 5 sd 4:0:2:0: [sdd] 286749488 512-byte logical blocks: (146 GB/136 GiB) sd 4:0:2:0: Attached scsi generic sg3 type 0 sd 4:0:2:0: [sdd] Write Protect is off sd 4:0:2:0: [sdd] Write cache: enabled, read cache: enabled, supports DPO and FUA sdd: unknown partition table sd 4:0:2:0: [sdd] Attached SCSI disk scsi 4:0:3:0: Direct-Access SEAGATE ST9146803SS 0004 PQ: 0 ANSI: 5 sd 4:0:3:0: [sde] 286749488 512-byte logical blocks: (146 GB/136 GiB) sd 4:0:3:0: Attached scsi generic sg4 type 0 sd 4:0:3:0: [sde] Write Protect is off sd 4:0:3:0: [sde] Write cache: enabled, read cache: enabled, supports DPO and FUA sde: unknown partition table sd 4:0:3:0: [sde] Attached SCSI disk The firmware version is 1.11. Let me know if you have any other questions. Please let me know if you can confirm the performance degradation with the driver as it is. David On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 9:18 PM, Jack Wang <jack_wang@usish.com> wrote: > Could you share your fio test scripts? disk detail and HBA firmware version > are also wanted if available. > > Jack >> >> I have one HBA connected directly to 4 SAS drives ... using a single 1 >> to four cable. >> >> >> On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 6:27 PM, Jack Wang <jack_wang@usish.com> wrote: >> >> Hello Jack Wang and Lindar Liu, >> >> >> >> >> >> I am running the pm8001 driver (on applicable hardware including a >> >> several core SMP server). >> >> >> >> When I run on an older kernel -- e.g. 2.6.34.7 -- I get about 73Kiops >> >> via an fio test. >> >> >> >> When I run a current kernel -- e.g. 2.6.39.2 -- on the same system and >> >> same storage I get about 15Kiops running the same fio test. >> >> >> >> Perhaps something has changes in the kernel that is not being accounted >> > for? >> >> Are you two still maintaining this driver? >> >> >> >> >> >> Regards, >> >> David >> > [Jack Wang] Could you give your detailed topology, I will later try to >> > investigate the performance issue, but as I remember an Intel developer >> > reports in mailist some changes in block layer lead to JBOD performance >> > degradation. >> > >> > >> -- >> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-scsi" in >> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org >> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html > > -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-scsi" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* Re: pm8001 performance degradation? 2011-07-12 19:34 ` ersatz splatt @ 2011-07-13 3:15 ` ersatz splatt 2011-07-13 4:08 ` Jack Wang 0 siblings, 1 reply; 8+ messages in thread From: ersatz splatt @ 2011-07-13 3:15 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Jack Wang; +Cc: lindar_liu, linux-scsi Jack, I think the apparent degradation was the result of profiling flags in the .config file. I turned off TASKSTATS, AUDIT, OPTIMIZE_FOR_SIZE, PROFILING (including OPROFILE), and GCOV_KERNEL. Somewhere in there I got the performance back. Without intending to run any of the tools at the time of my tests, I did not expect the consequences (I would only expect that if I was using a tool). Apologies for any confusion I passed to others. David On Tue, Jul 12, 2011 at 12:34 PM, ersatz splatt <ersatzsplatt@gmail.com> wrote: > Jack, > > fio script is: > [global] > rw=read > direct=1 > time_based > runtime=1m > ioengine=libaio > iodepth=32 > bs=512 > [dB] > filename=/dev/sdb > cpus_allowed=2 > [dC] > filename=/dev/sdc > cpus_allowed=3 > [dD] > filename=/dev/sdd > cpus_allowed=4 > [dE] > filename=/dev/sde > cpus_allowed=5 > > (keep in mind this is a system with several cores) > > > Before running the script I (of course) shut down coalescing: > echo "2"> /sys/block/sdb/queue/nomerges > echo "2"> /sys/block/sdc/queue/nomerges > echo "2"> /sys/block/sdd/queue/nomerges > echo "2"> /sys/block/sde/queue/nomerges > > echo noop > /sys/block/sdb/queue/scheduler > echo noop > /sys/block/sdc/queue/scheduler > echo noop > /sys/block/sdd/queue/scheduler > echo noop > /sys/block/sde/queue/scheduler > > As you know, disk details are shown in the log on driver load: > pm8001 0000:05:00.0: pm8001: driver version 0.1.36 > pm8001 0000:05:00.0: PCI INT A -> GSI 16 (level, low) -> IRQ 16 > scsi4 : pm8001 > scsi 4:0:0:0: Direct-Access SEAGATE ST9146803SS 0004 PQ: 0 ANSI: 5 > sd 4:0:0:0: [sdb] 286749488 512-byte logical blocks: (146 GB/136 GiB) > sd 4:0:0:0: Attached scsi generic sg1 type 0 > sd 4:0:0:0: [sdb] Write Protect is off > sd 4:0:0:0: [sdb] Write cache: enabled, read cache: enabled, supports > DPO and FUA > sdb: unknown partition table > sd 4:0:0:0: [sdb] Attached SCSI disk > scsi 4:0:1:0: Direct-Access SEAGATE ST9146803SS 0006 PQ: 0 ANSI: 5 > sd 4:0:1:0: Attached scsi generic sg2 type 0 > sd 4:0:1:0: [sdc] 286749488 512-byte logical blocks: (146 GB/136 GiB) > sd 4:0:1:0: [sdc] Write Protect is off > sd 4:0:1:0: [sdc] Write cache: enabled, read cache: enabled, supports > DPO and FUA > sdc: unknown partition table > sd 4:0:1:0: [sdc] Attached SCSI disk > scsi 4:0:2:0: Direct-Access SEAGATE ST9146803SS 0004 PQ: 0 ANSI: 5 > sd 4:0:2:0: [sdd] 286749488 512-byte logical blocks: (146 GB/136 GiB) > sd 4:0:2:0: Attached scsi generic sg3 type 0 > sd 4:0:2:0: [sdd] Write Protect is off > sd 4:0:2:0: [sdd] Write cache: enabled, read cache: enabled, supports > DPO and FUA > sdd: unknown partition table > sd 4:0:2:0: [sdd] Attached SCSI disk > scsi 4:0:3:0: Direct-Access SEAGATE ST9146803SS 0004 PQ: 0 ANSI: 5 > sd 4:0:3:0: [sde] 286749488 512-byte logical blocks: (146 GB/136 GiB) > sd 4:0:3:0: Attached scsi generic sg4 type 0 > sd 4:0:3:0: [sde] Write Protect is off > sd 4:0:3:0: [sde] Write cache: enabled, read cache: enabled, supports > DPO and FUA > sde: unknown partition table > sd 4:0:3:0: [sde] Attached SCSI disk > > > The firmware version is 1.11. > > Let me know if you have any other questions. Please let me know if > you can confirm the performance degradation with the driver as it is. > > > David > > > On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 9:18 PM, Jack Wang <jack_wang@usish.com> wrote: >> Could you share your fio test scripts? disk detail and HBA firmware version >> are also wanted if available. >> >> Jack >>> >>> I have one HBA connected directly to 4 SAS drives ... using a single 1 >>> to four cable. >>> >>> >>> On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 6:27 PM, Jack Wang <jack_wang@usish.com> wrote: >>> >> Hello Jack Wang and Lindar Liu, >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> I am running the pm8001 driver (on applicable hardware including a >>> >> several core SMP server). >>> >> >>> >> When I run on an older kernel -- e.g. 2.6.34.7 -- I get about 73Kiops >>> >> via an fio test. >>> >> >>> >> When I run a current kernel -- e.g. 2.6.39.2 -- on the same system and >>> >> same storage I get about 15Kiops running the same fio test. >>> >> >>> >> Perhaps something has changes in the kernel that is not being accounted >>> > for? >>> >> Are you two still maintaining this driver? >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> Regards, >>> >> David >>> > [Jack Wang] Could you give your detailed topology, I will later try to >>> > investigate the performance issue, but as I remember an Intel developer >>> > reports in mailist some changes in block layer lead to JBOD performance >>> > degradation. >>> > >>> > >>> -- >>> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-scsi" in >>> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org >>> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html >> >> > -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-scsi" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* Re: pm8001 performance degradation? 2011-07-13 3:15 ` ersatz splatt @ 2011-07-13 4:08 ` Jack Wang 0 siblings, 0 replies; 8+ messages in thread From: Jack Wang @ 2011-07-13 4:08 UTC (permalink / raw) To: 'ersatz splatt'; +Cc: lindar_liu, linux-scsi > Jack, > > I think the apparent degradation was the result of profiling flags in > the .config file. > > I turned off TASKSTATS, AUDIT, OPTIMIZE_FOR_SIZE, PROFILING (including > OPROFILE), and GCOV_KERNEL. > > Somewhere in there I got the performance back. > > Without intending to run any of the tools at the time of my tests, I > did not expect the consequences (I would only expect that if I was > using a tool). > > Apologies for any confusion I passed to others. > > > David > [Jack Wang] Nice to hear that. > > > On Tue, Jul 12, 2011 at 12:34 PM, ersatz splatt <ersatzsplatt@gmail.com> wrote: > > Jack, > > > > fio script is: > > [global] > > rw=read > > direct=1 > > time_based > > runtime=1m > > ioengine=libaio > > iodepth=32 > > bs=512 > > [dB] > > filename=/dev/sdb > > cpus_allowed=2 > > [dC] > > filename=/dev/sdc > > cpus_allowed=3 > > [dD] > > filename=/dev/sdd > > cpus_allowed=4 > > [dE] > > filename=/dev/sde > > cpus_allowed=5 > > > > (keep in mind this is a system with several cores) > > > > > > Before running the script I (of course) shut down coalescing: > > echo "2"> /sys/block/sdb/queue/nomerges > > echo "2"> /sys/block/sdc/queue/nomerges > > echo "2"> /sys/block/sdd/queue/nomerges > > echo "2"> /sys/block/sde/queue/nomerges > > > > echo noop > /sys/block/sdb/queue/scheduler > > echo noop > /sys/block/sdc/queue/scheduler > > echo noop > /sys/block/sdd/queue/scheduler > > echo noop > /sys/block/sde/queue/scheduler > > > > As you know, disk details are shown in the log on driver load: > > pm8001 0000:05:00.0: pm8001: driver version 0.1.36 > > pm8001 0000:05:00.0: PCI INT A -> GSI 16 (level, low) -> IRQ 16 > > scsi4 : pm8001 > > scsi 4:0:0:0: Direct-Access SEAGATE ST9146803SS 0004 PQ: 0 ANSI: > 5 > > sd 4:0:0:0: [sdb] 286749488 512-byte logical blocks: (146 GB/136 GiB) > > sd 4:0:0:0: Attached scsi generic sg1 type 0 > > sd 4:0:0:0: [sdb] Write Protect is off > > sd 4:0:0:0: [sdb] Write cache: enabled, read cache: enabled, supports > > DPO and FUA > > sdb: unknown partition table > > sd 4:0:0:0: [sdb] Attached SCSI disk > > scsi 4:0:1:0: Direct-Access SEAGATE ST9146803SS 0006 PQ: 0 ANSI: > 5 > > sd 4:0:1:0: Attached scsi generic sg2 type 0 > > sd 4:0:1:0: [sdc] 286749488 512-byte logical blocks: (146 GB/136 GiB) > > sd 4:0:1:0: [sdc] Write Protect is off > > sd 4:0:1:0: [sdc] Write cache: enabled, read cache: enabled, supports > > DPO and FUA > > sdc: unknown partition table > > sd 4:0:1:0: [sdc] Attached SCSI disk > > scsi 4:0:2:0: Direct-Access SEAGATE ST9146803SS 0004 PQ: 0 ANSI: > 5 > > sd 4:0:2:0: [sdd] 286749488 512-byte logical blocks: (146 GB/136 GiB) > > sd 4:0:2:0: Attached scsi generic sg3 type 0 > > sd 4:0:2:0: [sdd] Write Protect is off > > sd 4:0:2:0: [sdd] Write cache: enabled, read cache: enabled, supports > > DPO and FUA > > sdd: unknown partition table > > sd 4:0:2:0: [sdd] Attached SCSI disk > > scsi 4:0:3:0: Direct-Access SEAGATE ST9146803SS 0004 PQ: 0 ANSI: > 5 > > sd 4:0:3:0: [sde] 286749488 512-byte logical blocks: (146 GB/136 GiB) > > sd 4:0:3:0: Attached scsi generic sg4 type 0 > > sd 4:0:3:0: [sde] Write Protect is off > > sd 4:0:3:0: [sde] Write cache: enabled, read cache: enabled, supports > > DPO and FUA > > sde: unknown partition table > > sd 4:0:3:0: [sde] Attached SCSI disk > > > > > > The firmware version is 1.11. > > > > Let me know if you have any other questions. Please let me know if > > you can confirm the performance degradation with the driver as it is. > > > > > > David > > > > > > On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 9:18 PM, Jack Wang <jack_wang@usish.com> wrote: > >> Could you share your fio test scripts? disk detail and HBA firmware version > >> are also wanted if available. > >> > >> Jack > >>> > >>> I have one HBA connected directly to 4 SAS drives ... using a single 1 > >>> to four cable. > >>> > >>> > >>> On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 6:27 PM, Jack Wang <jack_wang@usish.com> wrote: > >>> >> Hello Jack Wang and Lindar Liu, > >>> >> > >>> >> > >>> >> I am running the pm8001 driver (on applicable hardware including a > >>> >> several core SMP server). > >>> >> > >>> >> When I run on an older kernel -- e.g. 2.6.34.7 -- I get about 73Kiops > >>> >> via an fio test. > >>> >> > >>> >> When I run a current kernel -- e.g. 2.6.39.2 -- on the same system and > >>> >> same storage I get about 15Kiops running the same fio test. > >>> >> > >>> >> Perhaps something has changes in the kernel that is not being accounted > >>> > for? > >>> >> Are you two still maintaining this driver? > >>> >> > >>> >> > >>> >> Regards, > >>> >> David > >>> > [Jack Wang] Could you give your detailed topology, I will later try > to > >>> > investigate the performance issue, but as I remember an Intel developer > >>> > reports in mailist some changes in block layer lead to JBOD performance > >>> > degradation. > >>> > > >>> > > >>> -- > >>> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-scsi" in > >>> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org > >>> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html > >> > >> > > > -- > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-scsi" in > the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-scsi" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2011-07-13 4:09 UTC | newest] Thread overview: 8+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed) -- links below jump to the message on this page -- 2011-07-11 19:06 pm8001 performance degradation? ersatz splatt 2011-07-12 1:27 ` Jack Wang 2011-07-12 2:44 ` ersatz splatt 2011-07-12 2:46 ` ersatz splatt 2011-07-12 4:18 ` Jack Wang 2011-07-12 19:34 ` ersatz splatt 2011-07-13 3:15 ` ersatz splatt 2011-07-13 4:08 ` Jack Wang
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.