[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[ale] Performance issue
- Subject: [ale] Performance issue
- From: ted-lists at xy0.org (Ted W.)
- Date: Sat, 20 Aug 2016 18:49:43 -0400
- In-reply-to: <CAEo=5PznkB8rgsqPEs+O-eGq8_nDFburSBFg83WpVoNKhC-B1g@mail.gmail.com>
- References: <CAEo=5PybjKGkCbqm09R+sKCeru6U-WO+sOKk5p5D5+mOK0AQPA@mail.gmail.com> <CAEo=5PwHcr7H_D9Qq+8xrxoCj=LgyvFoenfv3hH8Tz44e0wadQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAEo=5Pz4QFP2f4pdS+D_FHKPm68QezkKi41KU_Au+baaoU51YQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAEo=5PxTec=3znORptnx2+htOPuuUeDZ+sbPO2ZcLbxkKeBnKw@mail.gmail.com> <CAEo=5PxF3inBdLX1UhvG0-Ubaq3_fWuqyNJ+83jbx4spFzQzZg@mail.gmail.com> <CAEo=5PzBJCBK7jqk1zt4TKTnyrary8HqRdtNPakoce=VUs6o9w@mail.gmail.com> <CAEo=5Py17gd=YdjGbB4jeuAyoKbYq7kyY6s+W7rMfZz+rnjM_Q@mail.gmail.com> <CAEo=5Py7BQ0Ko+wQzA6PQMGFon5SyKwqTnB0vo+r4Q5-xZ_d2A@mail.gmail.com> <CAEo=5PzeeC5iCRTcOmjHEAE+PTHsTdk+ki_A_osWoD6CpZEQsQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAEo=5PznkB8rgsqPEs+O-eGq8_nDFburSBFg83WpVoNKhC-B1g@mail.gmail.com>
If you didn't already, try either iostat as `iostat -xm 1` or `sar -d`.
You see any unusual await or anything else that sticks out?
What FS? LVM?
A shot in the dark might lead me to check the FS alignment with fdisk but that
seems like an awfully large performance hit for something like that.
-Ted
On Fri, Aug 19, 2016 at 10:26:22AM -0400, Jim Kinney wrote:
> Getting DISMAL performance from new hardware.
>
> Twin 6-core Xeon E5-2630L v.2 @2.40 GHz
> 128GB DDR4 RAM
> LSI megaraid 2108 in a PCIe v3 slot
> Onboard LSI 3108
> Drives are all 6Gbps SAS2 4TB
> 2 arrays, RAID 6, one is 40Tb, other 104TB
>
> Everything hardware says I should expect a minimum through put of
> 12Gbps on either array.
>
> The max I'm getting from iotop is 784 Mbps.
>
> W. T. F!!!
>
> According to top, the system is basically idle. Ditto from iostat and
> every other tool I check. I'm doing a 'cp -a' from/to same array.
>
> Yes. New location is Luks encrypted. That process is totally asleep
> it's getting so little work. The rng is busy (dev/random is not running
> out (watch -n 1 cat /proc/sys/kernel/random/entropy_avail was always
> above 2048)) but not overloaded or asleep.
>
> Tested going unencrypted to unencrypted with similar performance.
>
> Changed tuned-adm to latency-performance from balanced and the read
> portion of the cp went to 0 bps for 20 seconds until I switched it back
> to balanced mode. So that was a fail. It improved greatly using
> throughout-performance mode (bursts of 250MB/s) but was still showing
> long periods of 0 writes. Load went up from a paltry 8 to 22 so it's
> working more.
>
> But top shows wa values across multiple cores hitting 100 so it's
> hitting a wall somewhere.
>
> Any ideas of more places to look?
> _______________________________________________
> Ale mailing list
> Ale at ale.org
> http://mail.ale.org/mailman/listinfo/ale
> See JOBS, ANNOUNCE and SCHOOLS lists at
> http://mail.ale.org/mailman/listinfo