Robert Milkowski writes:
> Hello Neil,
>
> Thursday, August 10, 2006, 7:02:58 PM, you wrote:
>
> NP> Robert Milkowski wrote:
> >> Hello Matthew,
> >>
> >> Thursday, August 10, 2006, 6:55:41 PM, you wrote:
> >>
> >> MA> On Thu, Aug 10, 2006 at 06:50:45PM +0200, Robert Milkowski wrote:
RM:
> I do not understand - why in some cases with smaller block writing
> block twice could be actually faster than doing it once every time?
> I definitely am missing something here...
In addition to what Neil said, I want to add that
when an application O_DSYNC write cover only parts o
Robert Milkowski wrote:
Hello Neil,
Thursday, August 10, 2006, 7:02:58 PM, you wrote:
NP> Robert Milkowski wrote:
Hello Matthew,
Thursday, August 10, 2006, 6:55:41 PM, you wrote:
MA> On Thu, Aug 10, 2006 at 06:50:45PM +0200, Robert Milkowski wrote:
btw: wouldn't it be possible to write b
Robert Milkowski wrote:
Hello Neil,
Thursday, August 10, 2006, 7:02:58 PM, you wrote:
NP> Robert Milkowski wrote:
Hello Matthew,
Thursday, August 10, 2006, 6:55:41 PM, you wrote:
MA> On Thu, Aug 10, 2006 at 06:50:45PM +0200, Robert Milkowski wrote:
btw: wouldn't it be possible to write b
Hello Neil,
Thursday, August 10, 2006, 7:02:58 PM, you wrote:
NP> Robert Milkowski wrote:
>> Hello Matthew,
>>
>> Thursday, August 10, 2006, 6:55:41 PM, you wrote:
>>
>> MA> On Thu, Aug 10, 2006 at 06:50:45PM +0200, Robert Milkowski wrote:
>>
btw: wouldn't it be possible to write block onl
Hello Neil,
Thursday, August 10, 2006, 7:02:58 PM, you wrote:
NP> Robert Milkowski wrote:
>> Hello Matthew,
>>
>> Thursday, August 10, 2006, 6:55:41 PM, you wrote:
>>
>> MA> On Thu, Aug 10, 2006 at 06:50:45PM +0200, Robert Milkowski wrote:
>>
btw: wouldn't it be possible to write block onl
Robert Milkowski wrote:
Hello Matthew,
Thursday, August 10, 2006, 6:55:41 PM, you wrote:
MA> On Thu, Aug 10, 2006 at 06:50:45PM +0200, Robert Milkowski wrote:
btw: wouldn't it be possible to write block only once (for synchronous
IO) and than just point to that block instead of copying it aga
Hello Matthew,
Thursday, August 10, 2006, 6:55:41 PM, you wrote:
MA> On Thu, Aug 10, 2006 at 06:50:45PM +0200, Robert Milkowski wrote:
>> btw: wouldn't it be possible to write block only once (for synchronous
>> IO) and than just point to that block instead of copying it again?
MA> We actually d
Robert Milkowski wrote:
Hello Matthew,
Thursday, August 10, 2006, 4:50:31 PM, you wrote:
MA> On Thu, Aug 10, 2006 at 11:48:09AM +0200, Robert Milkowski wrote:
MA> This test fundamentally requires waiting for lots of syncronous writes.
MA> Assuming no other activity on the system, the performa
On Thu, Aug 10, 2006 at 06:50:45PM +0200, Robert Milkowski wrote:
> btw: wouldn't it be possible to write block only once (for synchronous
> IO) and than just point to that block instead of copying it again?
We actually do exactly that for larger (>32k) blocks.
--matt
Hello Matthew,
Thursday, August 10, 2006, 4:50:31 PM, you wrote:
MA> On Thu, Aug 10, 2006 at 11:48:09AM +0200, Robert Milkowski wrote:
>> MA> This test fundamentally requires waiting for lots of syncronous writes.
>> MA> Assuming no other activity on the system, the performance of syncronous
>> M
On Thu, Aug 10, 2006 at 11:48:09AM +0200, Robert Milkowski wrote:
> MA> This test fundamentally requires waiting for lots of syncronous writes.
> MA> Assuming no other activity on the system, the performance of syncronous
> MA> writes does not scale with the number of drives, it scales with the
> M
Hello Matthew,
Tuesday, August 8, 2006, 8:08:39 PM, you wrote:
MA> On Tue, Aug 08, 2006 at 10:42:41AM -0700, Robert Milkowski wrote:
>> filebench in varmail by default creates 16 threads - I configrm it
>> with prstat, 16 threrads are created and running.
MA> Ah, OK. Looking at these results, i
Hello Matthew,
Tuesday, August 8, 2006, 8:08:39 PM, you wrote:
MA> On Tue, Aug 08, 2006 at 10:42:41AM -0700, Robert Milkowski wrote:
>> filebench in varmail by default creates 16 threads - I configrm it
>> with prstat, 16 threrads are created and running.
MA> Ah, OK. Looking at these results, i
On Tue, Aug 08, 2006 at 10:42:41AM -0700, Robert Milkowski wrote:
> filebench in varmail by default creates 16 threads - I configrm it
> with prstat, 16 threrads are created and running.
Ah, OK. Looking at these results, it doesn't seem to be CPU bound, and
the disks are not fully utilized either
bash-3.00# zpool status zfs_raid10_32disks
pool: zfs_raid10_32disks
state: ONLINE
scrub: none requested
config:
NAME STATE READ WRITE CKSUM
zfs_raid10_32disks ONLINE 0 0 0
mirror ONLINE 0 0 0
c3t16d0 ONLINE
filebench in varmail by default creates 16 threads - I configrm it with prstat,
16 threrads are created and running.
bash-3.00# lockstat -kgIW sleep 60|less
Profiling interrupt: 23308 events in 60.059 seconds (388 events/sec)
Count genr cuml rcnt nsec Hottest CPU+PILCaller
-
Hello Doug,
Tuesday, August 8, 2006, 7:28:07 PM, you wrote:
DS> Looks like somewhere between the CPU and your disks you have a limitation
of <9500 ops/sec.
DS> How did you connect 32 disks to your v440?
Some 3510 JBODs connected directly over FC.
--
Best regards,
Robert
Looks like somewhere between the CPU and your disks you have a limitation of
<9500 ops/sec.
How did you connect 32 disks to your v440?
Doug
> Hi.
>
> snv_44, v440
> lebench/varmail results for ZFS RAID10 with 6 disks
> and 32 disks.
> What is suprising is that the results for both cases
> a
19 matches
Mail list logo
