WARNING - OLD ARCHIVES

This is an archived copy of the Xen.org mailing list, which we have preserved to ensure that existing links to archives are not broken. The live archive, which contains the latest emails, can be found at http://lists.xen.org/
   
 
 
Xen 
 
Home Products Support Community News
 
   
 

xen-users

[Xen-users] 3ware 9550SXU-4LP performance

To: Xen Users <Xen-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [Xen-users] 3ware 9550SXU-4LP performance
From: Michael Kress <kress@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2006 17:05:44 +0200
Delivery-date: Fri, 20 Oct 2006 12:49:18 -0700
Envelope-to: www-data@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
List-help: <mailto:xen-users-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=help>
List-id: Xen user discussion <xen-users.lists.xensource.com>
List-post: <mailto:xen-users@lists.xensource.com>
List-subscribe: <http://lists.xensource.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xen-users>, <mailto:xen-users-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=subscribe>
List-unsubscribe: <http://lists.xensource.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xen-users>, <mailto:xen-users-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=unsubscribe>
Sender: xen-users-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
User-agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.7 (Windows/20060909)
Hi,  I used xen-3.0.2-2 (2.6.16) before and the performance of my 3ware
9550SXU-4LP wasn't too bad, but now with 3.0.3.0 (2.6.16.29) throughput
decreased by about 10MB/sec in write performance.
sync; ./bonnie++ -n 0 -r 512 -s 20480 -f -b -d /mnt/blabla -u someuser

now (2.6.16.29):
Version  1.03       ------Sequential Output------ --Sequential Input-
--Random-
                    -Per Chr- --Block-- -Rewrite- -Per Chr- --Block--
--Seeks--
Machine        Size K/sec %CP K/sec %CP K/sec %CP K/sec %CP K/sec %CP 
/sec %CP
matrix          20G           30546   6 26301   3           129709   3
135.2   0


before (with 2.6.16) I was at about 42MB for writing and 131MB for reading.
Have you got any ideas what I can do more for tuning?
I already did:
* StorSave: Balanced (I don't want to set it to Performance, for obvious
reasons)
* used noirqbalance parameter to prevent "nobody cared" messages related
to usb irqs
* use xfs (much faster than ext3)
* mv /lib/tls /lib/tls.disabled
   mv /lib/tls64 /lib64/tls.disabled
   ---> remarkable performance boost!(!)
* disable Queuing
* blockdev --setra 16384
* ask 3ware support
* use the newest driver for the controller (2.26.04.010)
* update firmware to FE9X 3.04.01.011
* use modules for the scsi subsys

My setup:
* Supermicro X6DH8-G2+, 4GB, 2+3.6Ghz
* use Bus Width, 64 bits, use Bus Speed 133 Mhz (I haven't noticed any
difference between 66Mhz and 133Mhz)
* 4 x Seagate ST3250820AS @3.0GBps
* Performance tests run in xen0

Why I'm writing this into the xen-users' ML: When I boot into my
distro's stock kernel (centos, i.e. 2.6.9-42.0.3), there's way bigger
performance, even with ext3, so I have to use xfs in order to reach ext3
results. So there must be some tuning that lacks here in xen.

Moreover I think, there's faster hard drives out there. I think that's
the core problem. Anyways, it's ok, performance of this machine is quite
ok. Anyways, I feel that performance in xen0 decreased whereas it
increased a bit in xenU.

Any more ideas? In other words: What the hell do the centos/redhat guys
do that the xen guys don't do. ;)
TIA, Michael

-- 
Michael Kress, kress@xxxxxxxxxxx
http://www.michael-kress.de / http://kress.net
P E N G U I N S   A R E   C O O L


_______________________________________________
Xen-users mailing list
Xen-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
  • [Xen-users] 3ware 9550SXU-4LP performance, Michael Kress <=