On Wed, Feb 28 2007, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> * Jens Axboe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > EngineDepth Batch Bw (KiB/sec)
> > libaio 2 821,125
> > syslet 2 819,610
>
> i'd like to do something more
* Jens Axboe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> EngineDepth BatchBw (KiB/sec)
> libaio2 821,125
> syslet2 819,610
i'd like to do something more about this to be more in line with libaio
- if
On Tue, Feb 27 2007, Suparna Bhattacharya wrote:
> > It's not bad for such a high depth/batch setting, but I still wonder why
> > are results are so different. I'll look around for an x86 box with some
> > TCQ/NCQ enabled storage attached for testing. Can you pass me your
> > command line or job
On Tue, Feb 27 2007, Suparna Bhattacharya wrote:
It's not bad for such a high depth/batch setting, but I still wonder why
are results are so different. I'll look around for an x86 box with some
TCQ/NCQ enabled storage attached for testing. Can you pass me your
command line or job file
* Jens Axboe [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
EngineDepth BatchBw (KiB/sec)
libaio2 821,125
syslet2 819,610
i'd like to do something more about this to be more in line with libaio
- if nothing
On Wed, Feb 28 2007, Ingo Molnar wrote:
* Jens Axboe [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
EngineDepth Batch Bw (KiB/sec)
libaio 2 821,125
syslet 2 819,610
i'd like to do something more about this to be
On Tue, Feb 27 2007, Evgeniy Polyakov wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 27, 2007 at 07:45:41PM +0100, Jens Axboe ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
> wrote:
> > > Deadline shows this:
> > >
> > > sync:
> > > READ: io=1,024MiB, aggrb=38,212KiB/s, minb=38,212KiB/s,
> > > maxb=38,212KiB/s, mint=28099msec, maxt=28099msec
> > >
On Tue, Feb 27, 2007 at 07:45:41PM +0100, Jens Axboe ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> > Deadline shows this:
> >
> > sync:
> > READ: io=1,024MiB, aggrb=38,212KiB/s, minb=38,212KiB/s,
> > maxb=38,212KiB/s, mint=28099msec, maxt=28099msec
> >
> > libaio:
> > READ: io=1,024MiB, aggrb=37,933KiB/s,
On Tue, Feb 27 2007, Avi Kivity wrote:
> Ingo Molnar wrote:
> >* Avi Kivity <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>But what about cpu usage? At these low levels, the cpu is probably
> >>underutilized. It would be interesting to measure cpu time per I/O
> >>request (or, alternatively, use an
On Tue, Feb 27 2007, Evgeniy Polyakov wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 27, 2007 at 12:29:08PM +0100, Jens Axboe ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
> wrote:
> > On Tue, Feb 27 2007, Evgeniy Polyakov wrote:
> > > My two coins:
> > > # cat job
> > > [global]
> > > bs=8k
> > > size=1g
> > > direct=0
> > > ioengine=sync
> > >
Ingo Molnar wrote:
Maybe a device mapper delay target or nbd + O_DIRECT can insert delays
to make the workload more disk-like.
yeah. I'll hack a small timeout into loopback requests i think. But then
real disk-platter effects are left out ... so it all comes down to
eventually having
* Avi Kivity <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > yeah - that's what testing on ramdisk (Jens') or on a loopback block
> > device (mine) approximates to a certain degree.
>
> Ramdisks or fully cached loopback return immediately, so cache
> thrashing effects don't show up.
even fully cached
Ingo Molnar wrote:
* Avi Kivity <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
But what about cpu usage? At these low levels, the cpu is probably
underutilized. It would be interesting to measure cpu time per I/O
request (or, alternatively, use an I/O subsystem that can saturate the
processors).
* Avi Kivity <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> But what about cpu usage? At these low levels, the cpu is probably
> underutilized. It would be interesting to measure cpu time per I/O
> request (or, alternatively, use an I/O subsystem that can saturate the
> processors).
yeah - that's what
On Mon, February 26, 2007 15:45, Jens Axboe wrote:
> Test case is doing random reads from /dev/sdb, in chunks of 64kb:
>
> Engine Depth Processes Bw (KiB/sec)
>
> libaio 200 1002813
> syslet
Suparna Bhattacharya wrote:
I tried the latest fio code with syslet v4, and my results are a little
different - have yet to figure out why or what to make of it.
I hope I have all the right pieces now.
This is an ext2 filesystem, SCSI AIC7xxx.
I used an iodepth_batch size of 8 to limit the
On Tue, Feb 27, 2007 at 10:42:11AM +0100, Jens Axboe wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 27 2007, Suparna Bhattacharya wrote:
> > On Mon, Feb 26, 2007 at 03:45:48PM +0100, Jens Axboe wrote:
> > > On Mon, Feb 26 2007, Suparna Bhattacharya wrote:
> > > > On Mon, Feb 26, 2007 at 02:57:36PM +0100, Jens Axboe wrote:
On Tue, Feb 27, 2007 at 12:29:08PM +0100, Jens Axboe ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 27 2007, Evgeniy Polyakov wrote:
> > My two coins:
> > # cat job
> > [global]
> > bs=8k
> > size=1g
> > direct=0
> > ioengine=sync
> > iodepth=32
> > rw=read
> >
> > [file]
> > filename=/home/user/test
>
On Tue, Feb 27 2007, Evgeniy Polyakov wrote:
> My two coins:
> # cat job
> [global]
> bs=8k
> size=1g
> direct=0
> ioengine=sync
> iodepth=32
> rw=read
>
> [file]
> filename=/home/user/test
>
> sync:
> READ: io=1,024MiB, aggrb=39,329KiB/s, minb=39,329KiB/s,
> maxb=39,329KiB/s, mint=27301msec,
My two coins:
# cat job
[global]
bs=8k
size=1g
direct=0
ioengine=sync
iodepth=32
rw=read
[file]
filename=/home/user/test
sync:
READ: io=1,024MiB, aggrb=39,329KiB/s, minb=39,329KiB/s,
maxb=39,329KiB/s, mint=27301msec, maxt=27301msec
libaio:
READ: io=1,024MiB, aggrb=39,435KiB/s,
On Tue, Feb 27 2007, Suparna Bhattacharya wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 26, 2007 at 03:45:48PM +0100, Jens Axboe wrote:
> > On Mon, Feb 26 2007, Suparna Bhattacharya wrote:
> > > On Mon, Feb 26, 2007 at 02:57:36PM +0100, Jens Axboe wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Some more results, using a larger number of
On Tue, Feb 27 2007, Suparna Bhattacharya wrote:
On Mon, Feb 26, 2007 at 03:45:48PM +0100, Jens Axboe wrote:
On Mon, Feb 26 2007, Suparna Bhattacharya wrote:
On Mon, Feb 26, 2007 at 02:57:36PM +0100, Jens Axboe wrote:
Some more results, using a larger number of processes and io
My two coins:
# cat job
[global]
bs=8k
size=1g
direct=0
ioengine=sync
iodepth=32
rw=read
[file]
filename=/home/user/test
sync:
READ: io=1,024MiB, aggrb=39,329KiB/s, minb=39,329KiB/s,
maxb=39,329KiB/s, mint=27301msec, maxt=27301msec
libaio:
READ: io=1,024MiB, aggrb=39,435KiB/s,
On Tue, Feb 27 2007, Evgeniy Polyakov wrote:
My two coins:
# cat job
[global]
bs=8k
size=1g
direct=0
ioengine=sync
iodepth=32
rw=read
[file]
filename=/home/user/test
sync:
READ: io=1,024MiB, aggrb=39,329KiB/s, minb=39,329KiB/s,
maxb=39,329KiB/s, mint=27301msec, maxt=27301msec
On Tue, Feb 27, 2007 at 12:29:08PM +0100, Jens Axboe ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
On Tue, Feb 27 2007, Evgeniy Polyakov wrote:
My two coins:
# cat job
[global]
bs=8k
size=1g
direct=0
ioengine=sync
iodepth=32
rw=read
[file]
filename=/home/user/test
sync:
READ:
On Tue, Feb 27, 2007 at 10:42:11AM +0100, Jens Axboe wrote:
On Tue, Feb 27 2007, Suparna Bhattacharya wrote:
On Mon, Feb 26, 2007 at 03:45:48PM +0100, Jens Axboe wrote:
On Mon, Feb 26 2007, Suparna Bhattacharya wrote:
On Mon, Feb 26, 2007 at 02:57:36PM +0100, Jens Axboe wrote:
Suparna Bhattacharya wrote:
I tried the latest fio code with syslet v4, and my results are a little
different - have yet to figure out why or what to make of it.
I hope I have all the right pieces now.
This is an ext2 filesystem, SCSI AIC7xxx.
I used an iodepth_batch size of 8 to limit the
On Mon, February 26, 2007 15:45, Jens Axboe wrote:
Test case is doing random reads from /dev/sdb, in chunks of 64kb:
Engine Depth Processes Bw (KiB/sec)
libaio 200 1002813
syslet 200
* Avi Kivity [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But what about cpu usage? At these low levels, the cpu is probably
underutilized. It would be interesting to measure cpu time per I/O
request (or, alternatively, use an I/O subsystem that can saturate the
processors).
yeah - that's what testing on
Ingo Molnar wrote:
* Avi Kivity [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But what about cpu usage? At these low levels, the cpu is probably
underutilized. It would be interesting to measure cpu time per I/O
request (or, alternatively, use an I/O subsystem that can saturate the
processors).
yeah
* Avi Kivity [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
yeah - that's what testing on ramdisk (Jens') or on a loopback block
device (mine) approximates to a certain degree.
Ramdisks or fully cached loopback return immediately, so cache
thrashing effects don't show up.
even fully cached loopback
Ingo Molnar wrote:
Maybe a device mapper delay target or nbd + O_DIRECT can insert delays
to make the workload more disk-like.
yeah. I'll hack a small timeout into loopback requests i think. But then
real disk-platter effects are left out ... so it all comes down to
eventually having
On Tue, Feb 27 2007, Evgeniy Polyakov wrote:
On Tue, Feb 27, 2007 at 12:29:08PM +0100, Jens Axboe ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
wrote:
On Tue, Feb 27 2007, Evgeniy Polyakov wrote:
My two coins:
# cat job
[global]
bs=8k
size=1g
direct=0
ioengine=sync
iodepth=32
rw=read
On Tue, Feb 27 2007, Avi Kivity wrote:
Ingo Molnar wrote:
* Avi Kivity [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But what about cpu usage? At these low levels, the cpu is probably
underutilized. It would be interesting to measure cpu time per I/O
request (or, alternatively, use an I/O subsystem that
On Tue, Feb 27, 2007 at 07:45:41PM +0100, Jens Axboe ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
Deadline shows this:
sync:
READ: io=1,024MiB, aggrb=38,212KiB/s, minb=38,212KiB/s,
maxb=38,212KiB/s, mint=28099msec, maxt=28099msec
libaio:
READ: io=1,024MiB, aggrb=37,933KiB/s, minb=37,933KiB/s,
On Tue, Feb 27 2007, Evgeniy Polyakov wrote:
On Tue, Feb 27, 2007 at 07:45:41PM +0100, Jens Axboe ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
wrote:
Deadline shows this:
sync:
READ: io=1,024MiB, aggrb=38,212KiB/s, minb=38,212KiB/s,
maxb=38,212KiB/s, mint=28099msec, maxt=28099msec
libaio:
On Mon, Feb 26, 2007 at 03:45:48PM +0100, Jens Axboe wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 26 2007, Suparna Bhattacharya wrote:
> > On Mon, Feb 26, 2007 at 02:57:36PM +0100, Jens Axboe wrote:
> > >
> > > Some more results, using a larger number of processes and io depths. A
> > > repeat of the tests from friday,
On Mon, 26 Feb 2007, Jens Axboe wrote:
>
> Some more results, using a larger number of processes and io depths. A
> repeat of the tests from friday, with added depth 2 for syslet and
> libaio:
>
> Engine Depth Processes Bw (MiB/sec)
>
On Mon, Feb 26 2007, Suparna Bhattacharya wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 26, 2007 at 02:57:36PM +0100, Jens Axboe wrote:
> >
> > Some more results, using a larger number of processes and io depths. A
> > repeat of the tests from friday, with added depth 2 for syslet and
> > libaio:
> >
> > Engine
* Suparna Bhattacharya <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > syslet still on top. Measuring O_DIRECT reads (of 4kb size) on ramfs
> > with 100 processes each with a depth of 200, reading a per-process
> > private file of 10mb (need to fit in my ram...) 10 times each. IOW,
> > doing 10,000MiB of IO
On Mon, Feb 26, 2007 at 02:57:36PM +0100, Jens Axboe wrote:
>
> Some more results, using a larger number of processes and io depths. A
> repeat of the tests from friday, with added depth 2 for syslet and
> libaio:
>
> Engine Depth Processes Bw (MiB/sec)
>
Some more results, using a larger number of processes and io depths. A
repeat of the tests from friday, with added depth 2 for syslet and
libaio:
Engine Depth Processes Bw (MiB/sec)
libaio1 1
Some more results, using a larger number of processes and io depths. A
repeat of the tests from friday, with added depth 2 for syslet and
libaio:
Engine Depth Processes Bw (MiB/sec)
libaio1 1
On Mon, Feb 26, 2007 at 02:57:36PM +0100, Jens Axboe wrote:
Some more results, using a larger number of processes and io depths. A
repeat of the tests from friday, with added depth 2 for syslet and
libaio:
Engine Depth Processes Bw (MiB/sec)
* Suparna Bhattacharya [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
syslet still on top. Measuring O_DIRECT reads (of 4kb size) on ramfs
with 100 processes each with a depth of 200, reading a per-process
private file of 10mb (need to fit in my ram...) 10 times each. IOW,
doing 10,000MiB of IO in total:
On Mon, Feb 26 2007, Suparna Bhattacharya wrote:
On Mon, Feb 26, 2007 at 02:57:36PM +0100, Jens Axboe wrote:
Some more results, using a larger number of processes and io depths. A
repeat of the tests from friday, with added depth 2 for syslet and
libaio:
Engine Depth
On Mon, 26 Feb 2007, Jens Axboe wrote:
Some more results, using a larger number of processes and io depths. A
repeat of the tests from friday, with added depth 2 for syslet and
libaio:
Engine Depth Processes Bw (MiB/sec)
On Mon, Feb 26, 2007 at 03:45:48PM +0100, Jens Axboe wrote:
On Mon, Feb 26 2007, Suparna Bhattacharya wrote:
On Mon, Feb 26, 2007 at 02:57:36PM +0100, Jens Axboe wrote:
Some more results, using a larger number of processes and io depths. A
repeat of the tests from friday, with added
On Fri, Feb 23 2007, Joel Becker wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 23, 2007 at 01:52:47PM +0100, Jens Axboe wrote:
> > Results:
> >
> > Engine Depth Bw (MiB/sec)
> >
> > libaio1 441
> > syslet1 574
On Fri, Feb 23 2007, Joel Becker wrote:
On Fri, Feb 23, 2007 at 01:52:47PM +0100, Jens Axboe wrote:
Results:
Engine Depth Bw (MiB/sec)
libaio1 441
syslet1 574
sync
On Fri, Feb 23, 2007 at 01:52:47PM +0100, Jens Axboe wrote:
> Results:
>
> Engine Depth Bw (MiB/sec)
>
> libaio1 441
> syslet1 574
> sync 1 589
> libaio
On Fri, Feb 23 2007, Suparna Bhattacharya wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 23, 2007 at 05:25:08PM +0100, Jens Axboe wrote:
> > On Fri, Feb 23 2007, Suparna Bhattacharya wrote:
> > > On Fri, Feb 23, 2007 at 03:58:26PM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > > >
> > > > * Suparna Bhattacharya <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Fri, Feb 23, 2007 at 05:25:08PM +0100, Jens Axboe wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 23 2007, Suparna Bhattacharya wrote:
> > On Fri, Feb 23, 2007 at 03:58:26PM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > >
> > > * Suparna Bhattacharya <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > > > As a really crude (and not very realistic)
* Suparna Bhattacharya <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > my expectation is that it should behave better with iodepth=2
> > (although i havent tried that yet).
>
> I picked up the fio snapshot from 22nd Feb
> (fio-git-2007012513.tar.gz) and used the v3 syslet patches from
> your
On Fri, Feb 23 2007, Suparna Bhattacharya wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 23, 2007 at 03:58:26PM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> >
> > * Suparna Bhattacharya <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > As a really crude (and not very realistic) example of the potential
> > > impact of large numbers of outstanding
On Fri, Feb 23, 2007 at 03:58:26PM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> * Suparna Bhattacharya <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > As a really crude (and not very realistic) example of the potential
> > impact of large numbers of outstanding IOs, I tried some quick direct
> > IO comparisons using fio:
>
* Suparna Bhattacharya <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> As a really crude (and not very realistic) example of the potential
> impact of large numbers of outstanding IOs, I tried some quick direct
> IO comparisons using fio:
>
> [global]
> ioengine=syslet-rw
> buffered=0
> rw=randread
> bs=64k
>
On Fri, Feb 23, 2007 at 01:52:47PM +0100, Jens Axboe wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 21 2007, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > this is the v3 release of the syslet/threadlet subsystem:
> >
> >http://redhat.com/~mingo/syslet-patches/
>
> [snip]
>
> Ingo, some testing of the experimental syslet queueing stuff, in
On Wed, Feb 21 2007, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> this is the v3 release of the syslet/threadlet subsystem:
>
>http://redhat.com/~mingo/syslet-patches/
[snip]
Ingo, some testing of the experimental syslet queueing stuff, in the
syslet-testing branch of fio.
Fio job file:
[global]
bs=8k
size=1g
On Wed, Feb 21 2007, Ingo Molnar wrote:
this is the v3 release of the syslet/threadlet subsystem:
http://redhat.com/~mingo/syslet-patches/
[snip]
Ingo, some testing of the experimental syslet queueing stuff, in the
syslet-testing branch of fio.
Fio job file:
[global]
bs=8k
size=1g
On Fri, Feb 23, 2007 at 01:52:47PM +0100, Jens Axboe wrote:
On Wed, Feb 21 2007, Ingo Molnar wrote:
this is the v3 release of the syslet/threadlet subsystem:
http://redhat.com/~mingo/syslet-patches/
[snip]
Ingo, some testing of the experimental syslet queueing stuff, in the
* Suparna Bhattacharya [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
As a really crude (and not very realistic) example of the potential
impact of large numbers of outstanding IOs, I tried some quick direct
IO comparisons using fio:
[global]
ioengine=syslet-rw
buffered=0
rw=randread
bs=64k
size=1024m
On Fri, Feb 23, 2007 at 03:58:26PM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
* Suparna Bhattacharya [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
As a really crude (and not very realistic) example of the potential
impact of large numbers of outstanding IOs, I tried some quick direct
IO comparisons using fio:
On Fri, Feb 23 2007, Suparna Bhattacharya wrote:
On Fri, Feb 23, 2007 at 03:58:26PM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
* Suparna Bhattacharya [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
As a really crude (and not very realistic) example of the potential
impact of large numbers of outstanding IOs, I tried some
* Suparna Bhattacharya [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
my expectation is that it should behave better with iodepth=2
(although i havent tried that yet).
I picked up the fio snapshot from 22nd Feb
(fio-git-2007012513.tar.gz) and used the v3 syslet patches from
your web-site.
Do I
On Fri, Feb 23, 2007 at 05:25:08PM +0100, Jens Axboe wrote:
On Fri, Feb 23 2007, Suparna Bhattacharya wrote:
On Fri, Feb 23, 2007 at 03:58:26PM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
* Suparna Bhattacharya [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
As a really crude (and not very realistic) example of the
On Fri, Feb 23 2007, Suparna Bhattacharya wrote:
On Fri, Feb 23, 2007 at 05:25:08PM +0100, Jens Axboe wrote:
On Fri, Feb 23 2007, Suparna Bhattacharya wrote:
On Fri, Feb 23, 2007 at 03:58:26PM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
* Suparna Bhattacharya [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
As a
On Fri, Feb 23, 2007 at 01:52:47PM +0100, Jens Axboe wrote:
Results:
Engine Depth Bw (MiB/sec)
libaio1 441
syslet1 574
sync 1 589
libaio 32
68 matches
Mail list logo
