unofficial mirror of bug-guix@gnu.org 
 help / color / mirror / code / Atom feed
From: Ricardo Wurmus <rekado@elephly.net>
To: Mathieu Othacehe <othacehe@gnu.org>
Cc: 51787@debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: bug#51787: Disk performance on ci.guix.gnu.org
Date: Mon, 20 Dec 2021 18:05:08 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <871r27p5jq.fsf@elephly.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <87o85bjjpm.fsf@gnu.org>


Mathieu Othacehe <othacehe@gnu.org> writes:

>> This is still pretty bad, but better than the <1M performance suggested
>> by previous runs.
>
> Mmh interesting, I also have a x10 speed up on sdb by increasing the
> block size from 4k to 512k. I'm not sure what conclusion should we draw
> from this observation.

As a general rule, we want the block size to match that of the
configured disk layout — if we care about getting the best numbers in
our benchmarks.  With real workloads things are always going to be
slower anyway.

> In particular for our most urging matter, /gnu/store/trash
> removal. Moving to a faster hard drive would definitely help here, but I
> still don't understand if that disk performance regression comes from
> Linux, the file-system fragmentation, or the disk itself.
>
>>    READ: bw=1547MiB/s (1622MB/s), 1547MiB/s-1547MiB/s (1622MB/s-1622MB/s), io=3055MiB (3203MB), run=1975-1975msec
>>   WRITE: bw=527MiB/s (553MB/s), 527MiB/s-527MiB/s (553MB/s-553MB/s), io=1042MiB (1092MB), run=1975-1975msec
>
> Wooh that's fast! On test could be to copy the /gnu/store/trash content
> to the SAN an observe how long that it takes for this operating to
> complete.

Do you mean time the copy or time the removal from that storage?  You
know what, I’ll time both.  I’ll need to get more space first.  I think
the trash directory is larger than the 500G that I got for testing the
SAN.

> Thanks for your support on that complex topic :)

Hey, I’m just happy neither of us has to do this alone.  Thank you!

-- 
Ricardo




  reply	other threads:[~2021-12-20 18:05 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
     [not found] <875yrjpi1y.fsf@elephly.net>
2021-12-20 16:59 ` bug#51787: Disk performance on ci.guix.gnu.org Mathieu Othacehe
2021-12-20 17:05   ` Ricardo Wurmus [this message]
2021-12-20 21:53     ` Mathieu Othacehe
2021-12-21 17:26       ` Ricardo Wurmus
2021-12-21 17:51         ` Leo Famulari
2021-12-21 18:23         ` Mathieu Othacehe
2021-12-21 23:20         ` Bengt Richter
2021-12-22  0:27         ` Thiago Jung Bauermann via Bug reports for GNU Guix
2021-12-25 22:19         ` Ricardo Wurmus
2021-12-26  8:53           ` Mathieu Othacehe
2021-12-30 10:44             ` Ricardo Wurmus
2021-12-20 18:36   ` Bengt Richter

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

  List information: https://guix.gnu.org/

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=871r27p5jq.fsf@elephly.net \
    --to=rekado@elephly.net \
    --cc=51787@debbugs.gnu.org \
    --cc=othacehe@gnu.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
Code repositories for project(s) associated with this public inbox

	https://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/guix.git

This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).