RE: Production comparison between 2.4.27 and 2.6.8.1

From: Massimo Cetra
Date: Sun Aug 22 2004 - 10:44:45 EST


Nick Piggin wrote:

> I wouldn't worry too much about hdparm measurements. If you
> want to test the streaming throughput of the disk, run dd
> if=big-file of=/dev/null or a large write+sync.

Created a big file:
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 1073740800 Aug 22 17:22 /testfile

time dd if=/testfile of=/dev/null gives:
On 2.6.8.1 ext3 raid
real 0m11.493s
user 0m0.657s
sys 0m2.796s
On 2.6.8.1 xfs:
real 0m18.214s
user 0m0.697s
sys 0m3.778s

Tests on 2.6.8.1 has been done with elevator=deadline

On 2.4.7 ext3 raid:
real 0m20.513s
user 0m0.704s
sys 0m2.626s

On 2.4.7 xfs:
real 0m28.414s
user 0m0.686s
sys 0m3.320s

So it seems that read access to disks is better on 2.6 tree.


> Regarding your worse non-RAID XFS database results, try
> booting 2.6 with elevator=deadline and test again.

This are results obtained with deadline:

filippo:~# dmesg |grep deadline
Using deadline io scheduler

A) [schema]
2b) 2.6.8.1 and xfs
real 0m0.551s
user 0m0.027s
sys 0m0.012s

B) [Importing data]
2b) 2.6.8.1 and xfs
real 1m1.474s
user 0m3.281s
sys 0m1.505s

It seems performance does not get better.

I have tried other tests:
With ext2 FS results are:



A)
1c) 2.4.7 and ext2 (no raid)
real 0m0.625s
user 0m0.028s
sys 0m0.018s
2c) 2.6.8.1 and ext2 (no raid)
real 0m1.667s
user 0m0.026s
sys 0m0.010s
B)
1c) 2.4.7 and ext2 (no raid)
real 1m28.542s
user 0m3.232s
sys 0m1.384s
2c) 2.6.8.1 and ext2
real 1m30.200s
user 0m3.304s
sys 0m1.461s

Still, even with ext2, 2.4.7 performs much better with postgres (and
likely other databases).

I have no idea nor no clue how to improve this.

> If yes,
> are you using queueing (TCQ) on your disks?

How can i check ?


Massimo Cetra


-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/