- Community Home
- >
- Servers and Operating Systems
- >
- Operating Systems
- >
- Operating System - HP-UX
- >
- Re: very poor performance, prealloc command
Categories
Company
Local Language
Forums
Discussions
Forums
- Data Protection and Retention
- Entry Storage Systems
- Legacy
- Midrange and Enterprise Storage
- Storage Networking
- HPE Nimble Storage
Discussions
Discussions
Discussions
Forums
Forums
Discussions
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
- BladeSystem Infrastructure and Application Solutions
- Appliance Servers
- Alpha Servers
- BackOffice Products
- Internet Products
- HPE 9000 and HPE e3000 Servers
- Networking
- Netservers
- Secure OS Software for Linux
- Server Management (Insight Manager 7)
- Windows Server 2003
- Operating System - Tru64 Unix
- ProLiant Deployment and Provisioning
- Linux-Based Community / Regional
- Microsoft System Center Integration
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Community
Resources
Forums
Blogs
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Mark Topic as New
- Mark Topic as Read
- Float this Topic for Current User
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Printer Friendly Page
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
тАО05-27-2009 05:37 PM
тАО05-27-2009 05:37 PM
very poor performance, prealloc command
HP support has pretty much raised their hand as they couldn't find any errors.
I have a rx3600 with Hitachi AMS200 Storage with 2 X 2GB FCs.
I would highly appreciate if someone could post similar results from their environment and post their hardware config to the level of detail I have listed above.
If anyone has experienced a similar issue and know of any suggestion would be appreciated as well but I am really interested in knowing the result of prealloc command.
Thanks
- Tags:
- prealloc
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
тАО05-27-2009 06:45 PM
тАО05-27-2009 06:45 PM
Re: very poor performance, prealloc command
writing:
timex dd if=/dev/zero of=/var/tmp/test bs=1024k count=1000
reading:
timex dd if=/dev/rdsk/cZZtYYdXX of=/dev/null bs=1024k count=1000
Note that dd is by far the fastest method to read or write (as long as you override the default 512byte block size) but is a lousy test for performance, especially for smart disks (RAID, arrays, virtualized storage) as dd is single threaded. Only one CPU can run the code and only one channel will get through to the disk. And of course, large cache sizes in arrays will make the measurement unstable, that is, the first run will be much longer than subsequent runs.
A much better test is to run 10 or 20 copies, or run the xdd freeware program to generate multiple tasks.
Bill Hassell, sysadmin
- Tags:
- dd
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
тАО05-27-2009 07:04 PM
тАО05-27-2009 07:04 PM
Re: very poor performance, prealloc command
On HP it takes little over 2 mins and on sun about 15 seconds.
I ran dd which is shows poor performance compare to prealloc.
It would be very helpful if you could run this in your environment so I have something to compare.
NESTER:root(/vm/guest/kalimdor)# timex dd if=/dev/zero of=/vm/guest/kalimdor/test bs=1024k count=1000
1000+0 records in
1000+0 records out
real 45.75
user 0.00
sys 0.16
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
тАО05-27-2009 07:17 PM
тАО05-27-2009 07:17 PM
Re: very poor performance, prealloc command
prealloc is a utility command and it may, or might not have been implemented as a high-performance command. It stated goal is NOT to write fast, but to create a file optimized for fast sequential reads and writes. It is probaly using SYNC commands to garantuee the IOs made it out the the storage and the storage actually allocated disk chunks fro 'smart' controllers like and EVA which only promiss space, but postpone allocation.
For prealloc only the end goal counts, not the path!
I suspect you are using prealloc as a method to evaluate the storage / filesystem performance potential. Correct?
As you may have discovered this is a treacherous method. To only proper way to measure performance it under actual load. Anything else may or might not hit or avoid good or bad attributes.
Surely it does not matter how fast you 'dd' or prealloc or tar or xyz goes.. unless that's all your application is doing.
Now I'll admit that the behavior would concern me also, but I'd be more inclined to look for explanations and alternatives and label it 'poor performance'.
Things I would check
- comparative DD results with if=/dev/zero for : bs=8k count = 128000 and for: bs=1024k count=1000... but 1GB is not enough!
- compare with RAW IO
- scsi queue_depth settings
- file system fragmentation ( only test on a clean file-system )
- LVM settings... just a single PV I hope?
On the SUN side...
When the pre-allocate returns, is all the IO actually done? (sync).
For example when i use a simple 'time dd' to write 1GB, that finished in 3 seconds. That is, the comamdn returns. But the actual IO still has to start! Looking with glance, the 'u' page. I can see the Io kick in several seconds later... for a minute long (slow single drive).
>> knowing the result of prealloc command.
On a single, clean U160 drive on my RX2600
# time prealloc /blah/test.tmp "$((1000*1024*1024))"
real 1:04.5
And GLANCE shows the same IO all along while busy, which drops to null when done, Unlike the prior DD experiment.
Hope this helps some,
Hein van den Heuvel ( at gmail dot com )
HvdH Performance Consulting.
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
тАО05-27-2009 07:31 PM
тАО05-27-2009 07:31 PM
Re: very poor performance, prealloc command
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
тАО05-27-2009 07:48 PM
тАО05-27-2009 07:48 PM
Re: very poor performance, prealloc command
Directory is utterly irrelevant.
But yes i did run them on the same file system, which is what matters.
And I did pre-delete the file before re-running
Also, I ofcourse had 4GB of filesystem cache.
Did you check the Sun cache and HP cache settings?
When I trimmed the filecache down to min=200MB, max=250MB, than the very same dd on the very same directory ( :-) ) took 40 seconds, with almost no IO after the dd command returned.
I'm sure you can figure out your lesson from there.
Hein.
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
тАО05-27-2009 10:16 PM
тАО05-27-2009 10:16 PM
Re: very poor performance, prealloc command
It calls prealloc(2) and that writes 8Kb (the filesystem blocksize), chunks, then fsync.
>It is probably using SYNC commands
Yes, one fsync(2) at the end.
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
тАО05-28-2009 12:50 AM
тАО05-28-2009 12:50 AM
Re: very poor performance, prealloc command
Maybe an OS patch will help with malloc.
Memory leak detector:
http://www.hpux.ws/?p=8
Performance monitor scripts
http://www.hpux.ws/?p=6
SEP
Owner of ISN Corporation
http://isnamerica.com
http://hpuxconsulting.com
Sponsor: http://hpux.ws
Twitter: http://twitter.com/hpuxlinux
Founder http://newdatacloud.com
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
тАО05-28-2009 02:06 AM
тАО05-28-2009 02:06 AM
Re: very poor performance, prealloc command
You probably will need to look at the queues length of your FC, the number of path to the lun.
But you should pursue with support and ask them to elevate.
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
тАО05-28-2009 03:26 AM
тАО05-28-2009 03:26 AM
Re: very poor performance, prealloc command
WHY?
There is nothing broken except the end user expectation. Hire a consultant yes, but support no.
There is a misguided belief that a simple system tool can provide useful performance information accross vendors without understanding of all the parameters involved. Specifically the size of the file system cache was not mentioned, yet is critical for dd experiments.
just a thought... how does the filesystem cache gets flushed left on its own, without fsync instructions? Will strictly write out in order of arrival, sweep low to high, or take a random approach. If it is not ordered, then a single fsync at the end is not good enough to guarantee the intended effect of prealloc. Storage subsystem may end up allocating storge segments for the file out of order.
Hein.