| |||||||||||||
Odd iozone resultsOdd iozone resultsPosted Jan 31, 2012 10:59 UTC (Tue) by dlang (✭ supporter ✭, #313)In reply to: Odd iozone results by sbergman27 Parent article: XFS: the filesystem of the future?
one thing to remember, in the general case writes can be cached, but the application pauses for reads.
If you do a sequential read test, readahead comes to your rescue, but if you are doing a mixed test, especially where the working set exceeds ram, you can end up with the application stalling waiting for a read and thus introducing additional delays between disk actions.
I don't know exactly what iozone is doing for it's mixed test, but this sort of drastic slowdown is not uncommon.
Also, if you are using a journaling filesystem, there are additional delays as the journal is updated (each write that touches the journal turns in to at least two writes, potentially with an expensive seek between them)
I would suggest running the same test on ext2 (or ext4 with the journal disabled) and see what you get.
(Log in to post comments)
|
|||||||||||||