Heh, would help if I actually attached the file ;) Phillip Susi wrote:
Attached are the results of some simple testing I did in ods format. These tests involved having dd read the first GB of data from my two drive sata (fake)raid0 array with varying numbers of concurrent aio operations ( except for the original, non aio dd of course ).I performed these tests with cpufreq disabled and filesystems mounted with noatime to insure no disturbances. I also set the IO scheduler to noop, otherwise the default scheduler reordered the IO requests which was not good for sequential throughput. I used commands like this:sync dd bs=512 count=1 iflag=direct if=/dev/sda of=/dev/null dd bs=512 count=1 iflag=direct if=/dev/sdb of=/dev/nulltime dd bs=128KiB count=32768 iflag=direct if=/dev/mapper/via_hfciifae of=/dev/nullThe first two commands were to make sure the drive head was on track zero, otherwise the TCQ on the drives kicked in and reordered some of the earlier reads as the head seeked to track zero.The results show a rather large increase in throughput for block sizes under 128 KB, with a smaller improvement on larger block size. Likewise, the cpu time used was significantly lower, especially with block sizes less than 128 KB. In most cases, the original dd uses 2-3 times more cpu time than the aio dd.The original dd reached near peak throughput ( 93.4 MB/s ) at a block size of 128 KB. I believe this is due in part to that being the stripe width of the array, so smaller block sizes did not keep both drives operating full time. In contrast all of the aio trials reached peak throughput of 97.x MB/s with a block size of only 32 KB, and at the smallest block size of 16 KB, the aio(16) trial managed more than 20% higher throughput than the non aio dd ( 72.1 vs 59.7 MB/s ), and did so using 1/7th the cpu time.To show the difference O_DIRECT makes, at 128 KB block size the original dd with O_DIRECT managed 93.4 MB/s using 0.906 seconds of CPU time. Without O_DIRECT, the original dd only sustains 82.6 MB/s and uses a whopping 2.912 seconds of cpu time, or more than triple the time without O_DIRECT, and 13x more cpu time than the aio(4) test at that block size!
Attachment:
dd aio results.ods
Description: application/vnd.oasis.opendocument.spreadsheet
- References:
- Re: Is user-space AIO dead?
- From: Kenny Simpson <[email protected]>
- Re: Is user-space AIO dead?
- From: Phillip Susi <[email protected]>
- Re: Is user-space AIO dead?
- Prev by Date: Re: [PATCH 2 of 2] __raw_memcpy_toio32 for x86_64
- Next by Date: [PATCH -mm 0/10] unshare system call -v5
- Previous by thread: Re: Is user-space AIO dead?
- Next by thread: Re: Is user-space AIO dead?
- Index(es):
 |