Date: Sun, 7 Jan 2018 23:50:16 +0800 From: blubee blubeeme <gurenchan@gmail.com> To: Mark Millard <markmi@dsl-only.net> Cc: FreeBSD Current <freebsd-current@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: USB stack Message-ID: <CALM2mEnnc4bzpFoRA_F_FayiBuGLwbwzyf-Gb-U6vmQ0RuGuYQ@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <FA0FA34D-B941-43DB-8885-902B502A5442@dsl-only.net> References: <3F9697E3-3C25-45CB-804A-9C3607E434C4@dsl-only.net> <CALM2mEnaA7zDVfONFQEBtC2WghbRFoFW2iPpmBKohP1pd45CcQ@mail.gmail.com> <0AB4ED58-E01A-4761-B6EF-4D56F8CA21E3@dsl-only.net> <F9A5DBFF-79C8-417D-9B6D-0788976B558C@dsl-only.net> <FA0FA34D-B941-43DB-8885-902B502A5442@dsl-only.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sun, Jan 7, 2018 at 8:13 PM, Mark Millard <markmi@dsl-only.net> wrote: > [I add an example of a none-USB to USB2 copy and > a USB2 to non-USB copy. They do not show any > < 8 MiByte/s bottlenecks.] > > On 2018-Jan-7, at 3:42 AM, Mark Millard <markmi@dsl-only.net> wrote: > > > [The other numbers show lots of delete activity on nvd0, > > not just primarily reads. Also: Can you test a different > > USB device, such as a USB SSD stick?] > > > > On 2018-Jan-7, at 2:44 AM, Mark Millard <markmi at dsl-only.net> wrote: > > > >> [The following notes a problem with how a test was done. > >> I omit the rest of the material.] > >> > >> On 2018-Jan-7, at 2:09 AM, blubee blubeeme <gurenchan at gmail.com> > wrote: > >> > >> . . . > >>> This is a larger file, not the largest but hey > >>> > >>> L(q) ops/s r/s kBps ms/r w/s kBps ms/w d/s kBps > ms/d %busy Name > >>> 0 4 0 0 0.0 2 8 0.0 0 0 > 0.0 0.1| nvd0 > >>> 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0 0.0 0 0 > 0.0 0.0| md99 > >>> 128 982 1 32 58.8 981 125428 110.5 0 0 > 0.0 100.0| da1 > >> . . . > >> > >> Note that almost complete lack of kBps near r/s but the large > >> kBps near w/s. > >> > >> It appears that the file has been cached in RAM and is not > >> being read from media at all. So this test is of a RAM to > >> disk transfer, not disk to disk, as far as I can tell. > >> > >> You need to avoid re-reading the same file unless you > >> dismount and remount between tests or some such. Or > >> just use a different file not copied since booting (that > >> file may or may not be a previous copy of the same file > >> by content). > >> > >> See if you can get gstat -pd results that show both > >> read kBps and write kBps figures. > > > > Can you test another USB device, such as a USB SSD > > stick, sometime known to be reliably fast and not > > involving reading from the LG v30? > > > > From what I read Android has many file systems supported > > or used at one time: ext4, f2fs, yaffs, yaffs2, > > vfat, msdos being in the list. Normal SD and SDHC files > > systems are FAT32 and SDXC is exFAT. > > > > So "Android 7.1" does not answer my question about which > > file system is actually on the usdcard being used. I'd > > guess FAT32 or exFAT, depending on SD/SDHC vs. SDXC, but > > I do not really know. > > > > > > My results show that getting above 8 MiBytes/s over > > USB 2.0 is supported for other than the rather low end > > of the FreeBSD range of systems. Beyond that is something > > more specific to your context and not involved in mine. > > The file system might be involved. > > > > So far, from the tables and what you have written, the > > LG v30 is required to be involved for the slowdown > > to sub 8 MiBytes/s. This is part of why I ask about > > testing an alternative USB device that is fast: it > > tests USB without involving the LG v30 or the usdcard. > > > > If USB ends up faster, then it is not USB's "stack" that > > is the primary source of the current bottleneck for your > > context: something else is also involved, such as the > > file system may be. > > > > Can you show gstat -pd output for copying from the > > LG v30? Copying to the 1TB USB backup device? The > > %busy figures might be interesting. > > > > > > In your other table: > > > > This is an example copying [multiple small files] to the 1TB drive. > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > ------------------------------------------------------ > > L(q) ops/s r/s kBps ms/r w/s kBps ms/w d/s kBps > ms/d %busy Name > > 0 547 290 35239 2.0 4 16 73.1 249 44291 > 93.7 48.8| nvd0 > > 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0 0.0 0 0 > 0.0 0.0| md99 > > 21 333 0 0 0.0 333 36040 16.2 0 0 > 0.0 76.2| da1 > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > ------------------------------------------------------ > > > > This shows lots of deletes per second for some reason. > > > > Did you move instead of copy? After each file was copied, > > was it then deleted? > > > > It is possible that the deletes slowed this down, > > whatever they were from. > > > Here are "gstat -pd" samples from during a: > > cp -ax /usr/src /media/root/srccpy_test > (which is to USB2 from non-USB.) > > dT: 1.071s w: 1.000s > L(q) ops/s r/s kBps ms/r w/s kBps ms/w d/s kBps > ms/d %busy Name > 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0 0.0 0 0 > 0.0 0.0| fd0 > 0 2346 2346 20234 0.1 0 0 0.0 0 0 > 0.0 11.9| da0 > 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0 0.0 0 0 > 0.0 0.0| da1 > 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0 0.0 0 0 > 0.0 0.0| da2 > 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0 0.0 0 0 > 0.0 0.0| da3 > 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0 0.0 0 0 > 0.0 0.0| cd0 > 1162 1375 21 658 60.1 1354 26962 331.4 0 0 > 0.0 81.1| da4 > > dT: 1.069s w: 1.000s > L(q) ops/s r/s kBps ms/r w/s kBps ms/w d/s kBps > ms/d %busy Name > 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0 0.0 0 0 > 0.0 0.0| fd0 > 0 859 859 7657 0.1 0 0 0.0 0 0 > 0.0 4.8| da0 > 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0 0.0 0 0 > 0.0 0.0| da1 > 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0 0.0 0 0 > 0.0 0.0| da2 > 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0 0.0 0 0 > 0.0 0.0| da3 > 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0 0.0 0 0 > 0.0 0.0| cd0 > 841 1544 7 240 5.3 1536 31956 261.7 0 0 > 0.0 93.0| da4 > > dT: 1.070s w: 1.000s > L(q) ops/s r/s kBps ms/r w/s kBps ms/w d/s kBps > ms/d %busy Name > 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0 0.0 0 0 > 0.0 0.0| fd0 > 0 1709 1709 15074 0.1 0 0 0.0 0 0 > 0.0 9.3| da0 > 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0 0.0 0 0 > 0.0 0.0| da1 > 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0 0.0 0 0 > 0.0 0.0| da2 > 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0 0.0 0 0 > 0.0 0.0| da3 > 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0 0.0 0 0 > 0.0 0.0| cd0 > 1257 1423 15 479 43.9 1408 31011 277.5 0 0 > 0.0 91.9| da4 > > dT: 1.070s w: 1.000s > L(q) ops/s r/s kBps ms/r w/s kBps ms/w d/s kBps > ms/d %busy Name > 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0 0.0 0 0 > 0.0 0.0| fd0 > 0 4350 4350 44982 0.1 0 0 0.0 0 0 > 0.0 22.0| da0 > 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0 0.0 0 0 > 0.0 0.0| da1 > 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0 0.0 0 0 > 0.0 0.0| da2 > 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0 0.0 0 0 > 0.0 0.0| da3 > 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0 0.0 0 0 > 0.0 0.0| cd0 > 943 1028 27 867 5.0 1001 19315 614.8 0 0 > 0.0 59.8| da4 > > > > Here are "gstat -pd" samples from during a: > > cp -ax /media/usr/src /root/srccpy_test > (which is to non-USB from USB2.) > > dT: 1.069s w: 1.000s > L(q) ops/s r/s kBps ms/r w/s kBps ms/w d/s kBps > ms/d %busy Name > 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0 0.0 0 0 > 0.0 0.0| fd0 > 0 306 0 0 0.0 306 38383 0.3 0 0 > 0.0 2.6| da0 > 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0 0.0 0 0 > 0.0 0.0| da1 > 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0 0.0 0 0 > 0.0 0.0| da2 > 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0 0.0 0 0 > 0.0 0.0| da3 > 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0 0.0 0 0 > 0.0 0.0| cd0 > 1 548 548 37533 52.7 0 0 0.0 0 0 > 0.0 100.2| da4 > > dT: 1.070s w: 1.000s > L(q) ops/s r/s kBps ms/r w/s kBps ms/w d/s kBps > ms/d %busy Name > 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0 0.0 0 0 > 0.0 0.0| fd0 > 0 934 7 209 0.1 927 12438 2.2 0 0 > 0.0 1.5| da0 > 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0 0.0 0 0 > 0.0 0.0| da1 > 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0 0.0 0 0 > 0.0 0.0| da2 > 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0 0.0 0 0 > 0.0 0.0| da3 > 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0 0.0 0 0 > 0.0 0.0| cd0 > 1 1296 1296 20674 0.7 0 0 0.0 0 0 > 0.0 90.1| da4 > > dT: 1.070s w: 1.000s > L(q) ops/s r/s kBps ms/r w/s kBps ms/w d/s kBps > ms/d %busy Name > 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0 0.0 0 0 > 0.0 0.0| fd0 > 0 1208 5 150 0.1 1203 32069 2.3 0 0 > 0.0 2.2| da0 > 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0 0.0 0 0 > 0.0 0.0| da1 > 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0 0.0 0 0 > 0.0 0.0| da2 > 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0 0.0 0 0 > 0.0 0.0| da3 > 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0 0.0 0 0 > 0.0 0.0| cd0 > 1 931 931 27073 6.9 0 0 0.0 0 0 > 0.0 93.6| da4 > > > No bottlenecks causing < 8 MiBytes/s: much faster then that. > USB2 is not such a bottleneck in my context. > > But, again, all UFS and the USB SSD stick is the slower > device but is, in turn, limited by USB2 in these. > > === > Mark Millard > markmi at dsl-only.net > > > > > I ran this test and here's some results. gstat -pd images: 18GB file from laptop to phone: https://imgur.com/a/7iHwv 18GB file from laptop to ssd: https://imgur.com/a/40Q6V multiple small files from laptop to phone: https://imgur.com/a/B4v4y multiple small files from laptop to ssd: https://imgur.com/a/mDiMu The files are missing timestamps but the originals were taken with scrot and have timestamps available here: https://nofile.io/f/mzKnkpM9CyC/stats.tar.gz2 as far as why there's such high deletions? I can't say I'm only using cp.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CALM2mEnnc4bzpFoRA_F_FayiBuGLwbwzyf-Gb-U6vmQ0RuGuYQ>