From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com (us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com [170.10.129.124]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E86A1C43334 for ; Tue, 14 Jun 2022 12:56:49 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mimecast-mx02.redhat.com (mimecast-mx02.redhat.com [66.187.233.88]) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP with STARTTLS (version=TLSv1.2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id us-mta-451-2Vhxt-IaOOuYwsDrGUJiVg-1; Tue, 14 Jun 2022 08:56:46 -0400 X-MC-Unique: 2Vhxt-IaOOuYwsDrGUJiVg-1 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.rdu2.redhat.com [10.11.54.10]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mimecast-mx02.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A495010726A4; Tue, 14 Jun 2022 12:56:43 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mm-prod-listman-01.mail-001.prod.us-east-1.aws.redhat.com (unknown [10.30.29.100]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 45045492C3B; Tue, 14 Jun 2022 12:56:38 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mm-prod-listman-01.mail-001.prod.us-east-1.aws.redhat.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by mm-prod-listman-01.mail-001.prod.us-east-1.aws.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D1B081947070; Tue, 14 Jun 2022 12:56:37 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.rdu2.redhat.com [10.11.54.9]) by mm-prod-listman-01.mail-001.prod.us-east-1.aws.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0C4471947067 for ; Tue, 14 Jun 2022 12:56:37 +0000 (UTC) Received: by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) id EB5D3492CA4; Tue, 14 Jun 2022 12:56:36 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mimecast-mx02.redhat.com (mimecast04.extmail.prod.ext.rdu2.redhat.com [10.11.55.20]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E7CA3492CA2 for ; Tue, 14 Jun 2022 12:56:36 +0000 (UTC) Received: from us-smtp-1.mimecast.com (us-smtp-2.mimecast.com [207.211.31.81]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mimecast-mx02.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6E073101A54E for ; Tue, 14 Jun 2022 12:56:36 +0000 (UTC) Received: from plutone.assyoma.it (host195-56-237-212.serverdedicati.aruba.it [212.237.56.195]) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP with STARTTLS (version=TLSv1.2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id us-mta-675-giev7WXSP3ycasVEM28-Cg-1; Tue, 14 Jun 2022 08:56:34 -0400 X-MC-Unique: giev7WXSP3ycasVEM28-Cg-1 Received: from webmail.assyoma.it (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by plutone.assyoma.it (Postfix) with ESMTPA id DB46319BF89C; Tue, 14 Jun 2022 14:56:30 +0200 (CEST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2022 14:56:30 +0200 From: Gionatan Danti To: Zhiyong Ye In-Reply-To: <8baee796-9bfb-47a8-1661-7e94437826c9@bytedance.com> References: <9c22b11a-b539-1974-7994-6835eea82bfd@bytedance.com> <8baee796-9bfb-47a8-1661-7e94437826c9@bytedance.com> User-Agent: Roundcube Webmail/1.4.13 Message-ID: X-Sender: g.danti@assyoma.it X-Mimecast-Impersonation-Protect: Policy=CLT - Impersonation Protection Definition; Similar Internal Domain=false; Similar Monitored External Domain=false; Custom External Domain=false; Mimecast External Domain=false; Newly Observed Domain=false; Internal User Name=false; Custom Display Name List=false; Reply-to Address Mismatch=false; Targeted Threat Dictionary=false; Mimecast Threat Dictionary=false; Custom Threat Dictionary=false X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.85 on 10.11.54.9 Subject: Re: [linux-lvm] Why is the performance of my lvmthin snapshot so poor X-BeenThere: linux-lvm@redhat.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: LVM general discussion and development List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Reply-To: LVM general discussion and development Cc: LVM general discussion and development Errors-To: linux-lvm-bounces@redhat.com Sender: "linux-lvm" X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.85 on 10.11.54.10 Authentication-Results: relay.mimecast.com; auth=pass smtp.auth=CUSA124A263 smtp.mailfrom=linux-lvm-bounces@redhat.com X-Mimecast-Spam-Score: 0 X-Mimecast-Originator: redhat.com Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed" Il 2022-06-14 12:16 Zhiyong Ye ha scritto: > After creating the PV and VG based on the iSCSI device, I created the > thin pool as follows: > lvcreate -n pool -L 1000G test-vg > lvcreate -n poolmeta -L 100G test-vg > lvconvert --type thin-pool --chunksize 64k --poolmetadata > test-vg/poolmeta test-vg/pool > lvchange -Z n test-vg/pool I did my performance test with bigger chunk size, in the range of 128-512K. It can very well be that the overload of a smaller chunk size results in 10x lower IOPs for to-be-allocated-and-copied chunks. Can you retry fio after increasing chunk size? As a side not, if I remember correcly thin pool metadata is hard limited do 16 GB - no need to allocate 100 GB for it. -- Danti Gionatan Supporto Tecnico Assyoma S.r.l. - www.assyoma.it email: g.danti@assyoma.it - info@assyoma.it GPG public key ID: FF5F32A8 _______________________________________________ linux-lvm mailing list linux-lvm@redhat.com https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-lvm read the LVM HOW-TO at http://tldp.org/HOWTO/LVM-HOWTO/