Re: dm-ioband: Test results.
From: Vivek Goyal
Date: Thu Apr 16 2009 - 22:14:55 EST
On Thu, Apr 16, 2009 at 04:57:20PM -0400, Vivek Goyal wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 13, 2009 at 01:05:52PM +0900, Ryo Tsuruta wrote:
> > Hi Alasdair and all,
> >
> > I did more tests on dm-ioband and I've posted the test items and
> > results on my website. The results are very good.
> > http://people.valinux.co.jp/~ryov/dm-ioband/test/test-items.xls
> >
> > I hope someone will test dm-ioband and report back to the dm-devel
> > mailing list.
> >
>
Ok, one more test. This time to show that with single queue and FIFO
dispatch a writer can easily starve the reader.
I have created two partitions /dev/sda1 and /dev/sda2. Two ioband devices
ioband1 and ioband2 on /dev/sda1 and /dev/sda2 respectively with weights
40 and 20.
I am launching an aggressive writer dd with prio 7 (Best effort) and a
reader with prio 0 (Best effort).
Following is my script.
****************************************************************
rm /mnt/sdd1/aggressivewriter
sync
echo 3 > /proc/sys/vm/drop_caches
#launch an hostile writer
ionice -c2 -n7 dd if=/dev/zero of=/mnt/sdd1/aggressivewriter bs=4K count=524288 conv=fdatasync &
# Reader
ionice -c 2 -n 0 dd if=/mnt/sdd1/testzerofile1 of=/dev/null &
wait $!
echo "reader finished"
**********************************************************************
Following are the results without and with dm-ioband
Without dm-ioband
-----------------
First run
2147483648 bytes (2.1 GB) copied, 46.4747 s, 46.2 MB/s (Reader)
reader finished
2147483648 bytes (2.1 GB) copied, 87.9293 s, 24.4 MB/s (Writer)
Second run
2147483648 bytes (2.1 GB) copied, 47.6461 s, 45.1 MB/s (Reader)
reader finished
2147483648 bytes (2.1 GB) copied, 89.0781 s, 24.1 MB/s (Writer)
Third run
2147483648 bytes (2.1 GB) copied, 51.0624 s, 42.1 MB/s (Reader)
reader finished
2147483648 bytes (2.1 GB) copied, 91.9507 s, 23.4 MB/s (Writer)
With dm-ioband
--------------
2147483648 bytes (2.1 GB) copied, 54.895 s, 39.1 MB/s (Writer)
2147483648 bytes (2.1 GB) copied, 88.6323 s, 24.2 MB/s (Reader)
reader finished
2147483648 bytes (2.1 GB) copied, 62.6102 s, 34.3 MB/s (Writer)
2147483648 bytes (2.1 GB) copied, 91.6662 s, 23.4 MB/s (Reader)
reader finished
2147483648 bytes (2.1 GB) copied, 58.9928 s, 36.4 MB/s (Writer)
2147483648 bytes (2.1 GB) copied, 90.6707 s, 23.7 MB/s (Reader)
reader finished
I have marked which dd finished first. I determine it with the help of
wait command and also monitor the "iostat -d 5 sdd1" to see how IO rates
are varying.
Notice with dm-ioband its complete reversal of fortunes. A reader is
completely starved by the aggressive writer. I think this one you should
be able to reproduce easily with script.
I don't understand how single queue and FIFO dispatch does not break
the notion of cfq classes and priorities?
Thanks
Vivek
> Ok, here are more test results. This time I am trying to see how fairness
> is provided for async writes and how does it impact throughput.
>
> I have created two partitions /dev/sda1 and /dev/sda2. Two ioband devices
> ioband1 and ioband2 on /dev/sda1 and /dev/sda2 respectively with weights
> 40 and 40.
>
> #dmsetup status
> ioband2: 0 38025855 ioband 1 -1 150 8 186 1 0 8
> ioband1: 0 40098177 ioband 1 -1 150 8 186 1 0 8
>
> I ran following two fio jobs. One job in each partition.
>
> ************************************************************
> echo cfq > /sys/block/sdd/queue/scheduler
> sync
> echo 3 > /proc/sys/vm/drop_caches
>
> fio_args="--size=64m --rw=write --numjobs=50 --group_reporting"
> time fio $fio_args --name=test1 --directory=/mnt/sdd1/fio/
> --output=test1.log &
> time fio $fio_args --name=test2 --directory=/mnt/sdd2/fio/
> --output=test2.log &
> wait
> *****************************************************************
>
> Following are fio job finish times with and without dm-ioband
>
> first job second job
> without dm-ioband 3m29.947s 4m1.436s
> with dm-ioband 8m42.532s 8m43.328s
>
> This sounds like 100% performance regression in this particular setup.
>
> I think this regression is introduced because we are waiting for too
> long for slower group to catch up to make sure proportionate numbers
> look right and choke the writes even if deviec is free.
>
> It is an hard to solve problem because the async writes traffic is
> bursty when seen at block layer and we not necessarily see higher amount of
> writer traffic dispatched from higher prio process/group. So what does one
> do? Wait for other groups to catch up to show right proportionate numbers
> and hence let the disk be idle and kill the performance. Or just continue
> and not idle too much (a small amount of idling like 8ms for sync queue
> might still be ok).
>
> I think there might not be much benefit in providing artificial notion
> of maintaining proportionate ratio and kill the performance. We should
> instead try to audit async write path and see where the higher weight
> application/group is stuck.
>
> In my simple two dd test, I could see bursty traffic from high prio app and
> then it would sometimes disappear for .2 to .8 seconds. In that duration if I
> wait for higher priority group to catch up that I will end up keeping disk
> idle for .8 seconds and kill performance. I guess better way is to not wait
> that long (even if it means that to application it might give the impression
> that io scheduler is not doing the job right in assiginig proportionate disk)
> and over a period of time see if we can fix some things in async write path
> for more smooth traffic to io scheduler.
>
> Thoughts?
>
> Thanks
> Vivek
>
>
> > Alasdair, could you please merge dm-ioband into upstream? Or could
> > you please tell me why dm-ioband can't be merged?
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Ryo Tsuruta
> >
> > To know the details of dm-ioband:
> > http://people.valinux.co.jp/~ryov/dm-ioband/
> >
> > RPM packages for RHEL5 and CentOS5 are available:
> > http://people.valinux.co.jp/~ryov/dm-ioband/binary.html
> > --
> > 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/
--
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/