Cameron Harr wrote:
New results, with markers.
----
type=randwrite  bs=512  drives=1 scst_threads=1 srptthread=1 iops=65612.40
type=randwrite  bs=4k   drives=1 scst_threads=1 srptthread=1 iops=54934.31
type=randwrite  bs=512  drives=2 scst_threads=1 srptthread=1 iops=82514.57
type=randwrite  bs=4k   drives=2 scst_threads=1 srptthread=1 iops=79680.42
type=randwrite  bs=512  drives=1 scst_threads=2 srptthread=1 iops=60439.73
type=randwrite  bs=4k   drives=1 scst_threads=2 srptthread=1 iops=51510.68
type=randwrite  bs=512  drives=2 scst_threads=2 srptthread=1 iops=102735.07
type=randwrite  bs=4k   drives=2 scst_threads=2 srptthread=1 iops=78558.77
type=randwrite  bs=512  drives=1 scst_threads=3 srptthread=1 iops=62941.35
type=randwrite  bs=4k   drives=1 scst_threads=3 srptthread=1 iops=51924.17
type=randwrite  bs=512  drives=2 scst_threads=3 srptthread=1 iops=120961.39
type=randwrite  bs=4k   drives=2 scst_threads=3 srptthread=1 iops=75411.52
type=randwrite  bs=512  drives=1 scst_threads=1 srptthread=0 iops=50891.13
type=randwrite  bs=4k   drives=1 scst_threads=1 srptthread=0 iops=50199.90
type=randwrite  bs=512  drives=2 scst_threads=1 srptthread=0 iops=58711.87
type=randwrite  bs=4k   drives=2 scst_threads=1 srptthread=0 iops=74504.65
type=randwrite  bs=512  drives=1 scst_threads=2 srptthread=0 iops=61043.73
type=randwrite  bs=4k   drives=1 scst_threads=2 srptthread=0 iops=49951.89
type=randwrite  bs=512  drives=2 scst_threads=2 srptthread=0 iops=83195.60
type=randwrite  bs=4k   drives=2 scst_threads=2 srptthread=0 iops=75224.25
type=randwrite  bs=512  drives=1 scst_threads=3 srptthread=0 iops=60277.98
type=randwrite  bs=4k   drives=1 scst_threads=3 srptthread=0 iops=49874.57
type=randwrite  bs=512  drives=2 scst_threads=3 srptthread=0 iops=84851.43
type=randwrite  bs=4k   drives=2 scst_threads=3 srptthread=0 iops=73238.46

I think srptthread=0 performs worse in this case, because with it part of processing done in SIRQ, but seems scheduler make it be done on the same CPU as fct0-worker, which does the data transfer to your SSD device job. And this thread is always consumes about 100% CPU, so it has less CPU time, hence less overall performance.

So, try to affine fctX-worker, SCST threads and SIRQ processing on different CPUs and check again. You can affine threads using utility from http://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/people/rml/cpu-affinity/, how to affine IRQ see Documentation/IRQ-affinity.txt in your kernel tree.

Vlad

_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.openfabrics.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/general

To unsubscribe, please visit http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general

Reply via email to