Re: Slow file transfer speeds with CFQ IO scheduler in some cases

[Wu Fengguang]

On Fri, Feb 13, 2009 at 11:08:25PM +0300, Vladislav Bolkhovitin wrote:
> Wu Fengguang, on 02/13/2009 04:57 AM wrote:
>> On Thu, Feb 12, 2009 at 09:35:18PM +0300, Vladislav Bolkhovitin wrote:
>>> Sorry for such a huge delay. There were many other activities I had 
>>> to  do before + I had to be sure I didn't miss anything.
>>>
>>> We didn't use NFS, we used SCST (http://scst.sourceforge.net) with   
>>> iSCSI-SCST target driver. It has similar to NFS architecture, where N 
>>>  threads (N=5 in this case) handle IO from remote initiators 
>>> (clients)  coming from wire using iSCSI protocol. In addition, SCST 
>>> has patch  called export_alloc_io_context (see   
>>> http://lkml.org/lkml/2008/12/10/282), which allows for the IO threads 
>>>  queue IO using single IO context, so we can see if context RA can   
>>> replace grouping IO threads in single IO context.
>>>
>>> Unfortunately, the results are negative. We find neither any 
>>> advantages  of context RA over current RA implementation, nor 
>>> possibility for  context RA to replace grouping IO threads in single 
>>> IO context.
>>>
>>> Setup on the target (server) was the following. 2 SATA drives grouped 
>>> in  md RAID-0 with average local read throughput ~120MB/s ("dd 
>>> if=/dev/zero  of=/dev/md0 bs=1M count=20000" outputs "20971520000 
>>> bytes (21 GB)  copied, 177,742 s, 118 MB/s"). The md device was 
>>> partitioned on 3  partitions. The first partition was 10% of space in 
>>> the beginning of the  device, the last partition was 10% of space in 
>>> the end of the device,  the middle one was the rest in the middle of 
>>> the space them. Then the  first and the last partitions were exported 
>>> to the initiator (client).  They were /dev/sdb and /dev/sdc on it 
>>> correspondingly.
>>
>> Vladislav, Thank you for the benchmarks! I'm very interested in
>> optimizing your workload and figuring out what happens underneath.
>>
>> Are the client and server two standalone boxes connected by GBE?
>
> Yes, they directly connected using GbE.
>
>> When you set readahead sizes in the benchmarks, you are setting them
>> in the server side? I.e. "linux-4dtq" is the SCST server?
>
> Yes, it's the server. On the client all the parameters were left default.
>
>> What's the
>> client side readahead size?
>
> Default, i.e. 128K
>
>> It would help a lot to debug readahead if you can provide the
>> server side readahead stats and trace log for the worst case.
>> This will automatically answer the above questions as well as disclose
>> the micro-behavior of readahead:
>>
>>         mount -t debugfs none /sys/kernel/debug
>>
>>         echo > /sys/kernel/debug/readahead/stats # reset counters
>>         # do benchmark
>>         cat /sys/kernel/debug/readahead/stats
>>
>>         echo 1 > /sys/kernel/debug/readahead/trace_enable
>>         # do micro-benchmark, i.e. run the same benchmark for a short time
>>         echo 0 > /sys/kernel/debug/readahead/trace_enable
>>         dmesg
>>
>> The above readahead trace should help find out how the client side
>> sequential reads convert into server side random reads, and how we can
>> prevent that.
>
> We will do it as soon as we have a free window on that system.

Thank you. For NFS, the client side read/readahead requests will be
split into units of rsize which will be served by a pool of nfsd
concurrently and possibly out of order. Does SCST have the same
process? If so, what's the rsize value for your SCST benchmarks?

Thanks,
Fengguang
--
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/