[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next]
[Thread Index]
[Date Index]
[Author Index]
Re: [dm-devel] [Lsf-pc] [LSF/MM TOPIC] a few storage topics
- From: Andreas Dilger <adilger dilger ca>
- To: "Loke, Chetan" <Chetan Loke netscout com>
- Cc: Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange redhat com>, Andreas Dilger <adilger dilger ca>, Jan Kara <jack suse cz>, "<linux-scsi vger kernel org>" <linux-scsi vger kernel org>, Mike Snitzer <snitzer redhat com>, Christoph Hellwig <hch infradead org>, Jeff Moyer <jmoyer redhat com>, "<linux-mm kvack org>" <linux-mm kvack org>, "<dm-devel redhat com>" <dm-devel redhat com>, Wu Fengguang <fengguang wu gmail com>, Boaz Harrosh <bharrosh panasas com>, "<linux-fsdevel vger kernel org>" <linux-fsdevel vger kernel org>, "<lsf-pc lists linux-foundation org>" <lsf-pc lists linux-foundation org>, Steven Whitehouse <swhiteho redhat com>, Chris Mason <chris mason oracle com>
- Subject: Re: [dm-devel] [Lsf-pc] [LSF/MM TOPIC] a few storage topics
- Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2012 10:00:04 -0700
On 2012-01-26, at 9:40, "Loke, Chetan" <Chetan Loke netscout com> wrote:
> And 'maybe' for adaptive RA just increase the RA-blocks by '1'(or some
> N) over period of time. No more smartness. A simple 10 line function is
> easy to debug/maintain. That is, a scaled-down version of
> ramp-up/ramp-down. Don't go crazy by ramping-up/down after every RA(like
> SCSI LLDD madness). Wait for some event to happen.
Doing 1-block readahead increments is a performance disaster on RAID-5/6. That means you seek all the disks, but use only a fraction of the data that the controller read internally and had to parity check.
It makes more sense to keep the read units the same size as write units (1 MB or as dictated by RAID geometry) that the filesystem is also hopefully using for allocation. When doing a readahead it should fetch the whole chunk at one time, then not do another until it needs another full chunk.
Cheers, Andreas
[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next]
[Thread Index]
[Date Index]
[Author Index]