X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.0-rupdated (updated) on oss.sgi.com X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.6 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 autolearn=ham version=3.3.0-rupdated Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda3.sgi.com [192.48.176.15]) by oss.sgi.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11/SuSE Linux 0.7) with ESMTP id mBB0Kfqf005229 for ; Wed, 10 Dec 2008 18:20:41 -0600 X-ASG-Debug-ID: 1228954838-52b1019c0000-NocioJ X-Barracuda-URL: http://cuda.sgi.com:80/cgi-bin/mark.cgi Received: from partygirl.tmr.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cuda.sgi.com (Spam Firewall) with ESMTP id 50664170E203 for ; Wed, 10 Dec 2008 16:20:39 -0800 (PST) Received: from partygirl.tmr.com (mail.tmr.com [64.65.253.246]) by cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id 96bKd2JRC89BOjGj for ; Wed, 10 Dec 2008 16:20:39 -0800 (PST) Received: from partygirl.tmr.com (FC9install.tmr.com [127.0.0.1]) by partygirl.tmr.com (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id mBB0Kb1B019153; Wed, 10 Dec 2008 19:20:37 -0500 Message-ID: <49405CD5.4070704@tmr.com> Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2008 19:20:37 -0500 From: Bill Davidsen Organization: TMR Associates Inc, Schenectady NY User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.8.1.18) Gecko/20081112 Fedora/1.1.13-1.fc9 SeaMonkey/1.1.13 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Justin Piszcz CC: linux-raid@vger.kernel.org, xfs@oss.sgi.com, Alan Piszcz X-ASG-Orig-Subj: Re: 12x performance drop on md/linux+sw raid1 due to barriers [xfs] Subject: Re: 12x performance drop on md/linux+sw raid1 due to barriers [xfs] References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Barracuda-Connect: mail.tmr.com[64.65.253.246] X-Barracuda-Start-Time: 1228954840 X-Barracuda-Bayes: INNOCENT GLOBAL 0.0000 1.0000 -2.0210 X-Barracuda-Virus-Scanned: by cuda.sgi.com at sgi.com X-Barracuda-Spam-Score: -2.02 X-Barracuda-Spam-Status: No, SCORE=-2.02 using per-user scores of TAG_LEVEL=2.0 QUARANTINE_LEVEL=1000.0 KILL_LEVEL=2.1 tests= X-Barracuda-Spam-Report: Code version 3.2, rules version 3.2.1.12436 Rule breakdown below pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- Justin Piszcz wrote: > Someone should write a document with XFS and barrier support, if I > recall, > in the past, they never worked right on raid1 or raid5 devices, but it > appears now they they work on RAID1, which slows down performance ~12 > times!! > I would expect you, as an experienced tester, to have done this measurement more rigorously! I don't think it means much if this is what you did. > l1:~# /usr/bin/time tar xf linux-2.6.27.7.tar 0.15user 1.54system > 0:13.18elapsed 12%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata 0maxresident)k > 0inputs+0outputs (0major+325minor)pagefaults 0swaps > l1:~# > > l1:~# /usr/bin/time tar xf linux-2.6.27.7.tar > 0.14user 1.66system 2:39.68elapsed 1%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata > 0maxresident)k > 0inputs+0outputs (0major+324minor)pagefaults 0swaps > l1:~# > Before doing any disk test you need to start by dropping cache, to be sure the appropriate reproducible things happen. And in doing a timing test, you need to end with a sync for the same reason. So: echo 1 >/proc/sys/vm/drop_caches time bash -c "YOUR TEST; sync" This will give you a fair shot at being able to reproduce the results, done on an otherwise unloaded system. -- Bill Davidsen "Woe unto the statesman who makes war without a reason that will still be valid when the war is over..." Otto von Bismark