On Sun, Jul 22 2007, Rik van Riel wrote:
> Jens Axboe wrote:
>
>> I just wish you had a rationale behind them, I don't think it's that
>> great of a series. I agree with the low point of 128k. Then it'd be sane
>> to try and determine what the upper limit of ra window size goodness is,
>> which is probably impossible since it depends on the hardware a lot. But
>> lets just say the upper value is 2mb, then I think it's pretty silly
>> _not_ to use 2mb on a 1g machine for instance. So more aggressive
>> scaling.
>
> 1 or 2 MB is a nice number.
>
> Seek time (plus rotational latency) on disks still takes
> on the order of 10 ms, while disks commonly transfer data
> on the order of 50MB/second.
>
> That means one disk seek (10ms) takes as long as it takes
> to read around 512kB of data.
>
> The current 128kB means that if you have lots of streaming
> IO going on, you spend only 20% of the time transferring
> data and get roughly 10MB/s. Seek 10ms, read 2.5ms worth
> of data.
>
> OTOH, if you do 2MB per request for the same heavy streaming
> workload (say, an ftp or nfs server doing media files), you
> can get 80% of the disk throughput, or 40MB/s. This is because
> you spend 40ms transferring data for every 10ms seek time.
>
> Yes, filesystem metadata will reduce this "occasionally",
> but the general idea holds.
I meant real numbers, the above is just rudimentary math. AS and CFQ
makes sure that you get a window of more than one request in, so huge
read-ahead sizes aren't as interesting.
So - more testing, less hand waving :-)
--
Jens Axboe
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
