> So I went from 120 to 512. Does that mean 4.266 times more data was being read
> off the drive?
Yes, but only when the OS decided you were doing sequential enough reads
to gamble doing so.
> Now that I use rrdtool 1.2.9[...] the read value dropped even further:
> 84KB/s, which is consisten
Hi,
On Fri, Oct 26, 2007 at 05:53:33AM -0700, Jason Fesler wrote:
> I wonder if it is the defaults for readahead. "man blockdev" and search
> for readahead. You might read what your defaults were on the old kernel;
> and temporarilly apply them to your drives under the new kernel, and see
>
> Now I don't understand why on earth it used to work so well on the old
> server and rrdtool 1.2.10 ...
I wonder if it is the defaults for readahead. "man blockdev" and search
for readahead. You might read what your defaults were on the old kernel;
and temporarilly apply them to your drives
On Fri, Oct 26, 2007 at 09:47:38AM +0200, Fabien Wernli wrote:
> Before: 294% iowait
> 4.9MB/s read (hardware raid1 hidden to linux)
> 1.1MB/s write
> 4.6 loadavg
>
> After: 318% iowait
> 57.9MB/s read (linux raid10 -> values have to be div by 2)
> 2.3MB/s
Hi,
Yesterday I migrated my dual-xeon 4GB RAID1 rrd to a quad-opteron 8GB
RAID10 server, in the hope to reduce the load.
I am managing 18k RRDs, each being updated randomly every ~10minutes
over ssh, which makes roughly 30 file updates/s.
I had many performance problems with the new server, which
