Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Sat, 25 Sep 2004 16:52:36 +0200
From:      Pawel Jakub Dawidek <pjd@FreeBSD.org>
To:        Paul Mather <paul@gromit.dlib.vt.edu>
Cc:        freebsd-geom@freebsd.org
Subject:   Re: gstripe stripe size units?
Message-ID:  <20040925145236.GO9550@darkness.comp.waw.pl>
In-Reply-To: <1096062713.9306.119.camel@zappa.Chelsea-Ct.Org>
References:  <1095993821.5665.124.camel@zappa.Chelsea-Ct.Org> <20040924075553.GE9550@darkness.comp.waw.pl> <1096062713.9306.119.camel@zappa.Chelsea-Ct.Org>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help

--TRkqPRiqIDKgfg/F
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-2
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Fri, Sep 24, 2004 at 05:51:54PM -0400, Paul Mather wrote:
+> > If gstripe is running in "fast" mode (kern.geom.stripe.fast=3D1), size=
 of
+> > stripe could be small, because then, it still sends as large I/O reque=
sts
+> > as possible and reorganize the data in memory, but this method consumes
+> > a lot of memory if you want it to be efficient.
+>=20
+> One thing that puzzles me is that no matter how large I made the stripe
+> size, I never got a kern.geom.stripe.fast_failed > 0. [...]

It will be hard for raidtest tests, but it is really easy for
UFS+softupdates and small stripe size.

+> I'm puzzled because a stripe of 16 MB will not fit in 6553600 bytes, so
+> surely fast_failed should be > 0 at stripes of 8 MB or greater in my
+> tests for the above value of kern.geom.stripe.maxmem?

This is a problem for small stripe sizes, not for big ones.
Remember, that no metter how large stripe size is, maximum I/O request
size is still 128kB, so for stripe size >=3D 64kB there is not even chance
to fail - gstripe don't allocate memory if it is not needed, i.e. if we
can split request on two pieces or even send it as one piece.

+> Also, I don't know what the distribution of request sizes is in
+> raidtest.data.  The raidtest program operates over the raw device, and
+> so may not necessarily behave in terms of issuing requests as, say, a
+> UFS filesystem might.

Of course. You should run some file systems tests as well.

--=20
Pawel Jakub Dawidek                       http://www.FreeBSD.org
pjd@FreeBSD.org                           http://garage.freebsd.pl
FreeBSD committer                         Am I Evil? Yes, I Am!

--TRkqPRiqIDKgfg/F
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Disposition: inline

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (FreeBSD)

iD8DBQFBVYY0ForvXbEpPzQRAqYcAJ9e5LXWgcpMI+P4usPwszlcfks7AwCeKehD
PslUqk8dcrJ2ggUFGQNh6yE=
=QiNi
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--TRkqPRiqIDKgfg/F--



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20040925145236.GO9550>