Sir,

The HDD is hardware Raid 5 with 530-8i raid card.
I tried 1m seq write with numjobs=1, the data similar as kernel 3.10.0, 
whatever mq-deadline or BFQ elevator.
If you need detail testing data with numjobs=1, I can do it. Or any info you 
need, such as two process with 1 thread.

Thank you.

BestRegards,
SunnyLiu(刘萍)
LenovoNetApp 
北京市海淀区西北旺东路10号院2号楼L3-E1-01
L3-E1-01,Building No.2, Lenovo HQ West No.10 XiBeiWang East Rd.,
Haidian District, Beijing 100094, PRC
Tel: +86 15910622368

-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected] <[email protected]> On 
Behalf Of Damien Le Moal
Sent: 2019年9月19日 20:45
To: Liu, Sunny <[email protected]>; Hannes Reinecke <[email protected]>; 
Jens Axboe <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected]; Martin K. Petersen 
<[email protected]>; James Bottomley 
<[email protected]>; Christoph Hellwig <[email protected]>; 
[email protected]; Hans Holmberg <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/2] blk-mq I/O scheduling fixes

On 2019/09/19 12:59, Liu, Sunny wrote:
> Thank very much for your quickly advice.
> 
> The problem drive is sata HDD 7200rpm in raid 5.

Sorry, I read "SDD" where you had written "HDD" :) Is this a hardware RAID ? Or 
is this using dm/md raid ?

> If using Fio libaio iodepth=128 numjob=2, the bad performance will be 
> as below in red. But there is no problem with numjob=1. In our 
> solution, *multiple
> threads* should be used.

Your data does not have the numjobs=1 case for kernel 5.2.9. You should run 
that for comparison with the numjobs=2 case on the same kernel.

> From the testing result, BFQ low-latency had good performance, but it 
> still has problem in 1m seq write.
> 
> The data is come from centos 7.6 (kernel 3.10.0-975) and kernel 5.2.9 
> with BFQ and bcache enabled. No bcache configure.
> 
> Is there any parameter can solve the 1m and upper seq write problem 
> with multiple threads?

Not sure what the problem is here. You could look at a blktrace of each case to 
see if there is any major difference in the command patterns sent to the disks 
of your array, in particular command size.

--
Damien Le Moal
Western Digital Research

Reply via email to