[dm-devel] default value for rr_min_io too high?
David Wysochanski
davidw at netapp.com
Wed Feb 1 18:30:22 UTC 2006
Christophe Varoqui wrote:
> On mer, 2006-01-18 at 23:29 +0100, Christophe Varoqui wrote:
> > On mer, 2006-01-18 at 16:41 -0500, David Wysochanski wrote:
> > > I'm wondering where the value of 1000 came from, and
> > > whether that's really a good default.
> > >
> > > Some preliminary tests I've run with iSCSI seem to indicate
> > > something lower (say 100) might be a better default, but
> > > perhaps others have a differing opinion. I searched the
> > > list but couldn't find any discussion on it.
> > >
> > I'm not really focused on performance, but this seems to be an
> > io-pattern dependant choice.
> >
> > Higher values may help the elevators, (right ?) thus help the seeky
> > workloads. Lower values may certainly benefit from lower values to
> > really get the paths summed bandwidth.
> >
> > Anyway, I can not back this with numbers. Any value will be fine with me
> > as a default, and I highlight that now you can also set per device
> > defaults like rr_min_io in hwtable.c
> >
> Replying to myself,
>
> I finally got the chance to challenge my sayings, and I'm proven badly
> wrong :/
>
> On a StorageWorks EVA110 FC array, 2 active 2Gb/s paths to 2 2Gb/s
> target ports. 1 streaming read (sg_dd dio=1 if=/dev/mapper/mpath0
> of=/dev/null bs=1M count=100k) :
>
> rr_min_io = 1000 => aggregated throughput = 120 Mo/s
> rr_min_io = 100 => aggregated throughput = 130 Mo/s
> rr_min_io = 50 => aggregated throughput = 200 Mo/s
> rr_min_io = 20 => aggregated throughput = 260 Mo/s
> rr_min_io = 10 => aggregated throughput = 300 Mo/s
>
What I seemed to see what the larger the I/O size the lower
I needed to go with rr_min_io to get best throughput. Did
you run it with a smaller block size, say 4k?
I will try to get some more definitive #'s and post.
More information about the dm-devel
mailing list