|
|

# Odd iozone results

## Odd iozone results

Posted Jan 31, 2012 6:55 UTC (Tue) by jimparis (subscriber, #38647)
In reply to: Odd iozone results by sbergman27
Parent article: XFS: the filesystem of the future?

> The elevator algorithm basically takes you from the worst case, totally random 8ms per request time, down closer to the 0.8ms track to track seek time.

You're forgetting about rotational latency. After arriving at a particular track, you still need the platter to rotate to the angle at which your requested data is actually stored. For a 7200 RPM disk, that's an average of 4ms (half a rotation). I don't think you can expect to do better than that.

> 128 seeks at, 0.8ms per seek works out to 0.1 seconds for a pass over the surface. And 128 requests at 8k r/w per request works out to ~10mb/s.

With 4.8ms per seek, that same calculation gives ~1600kb/s. Which is only twice what you were seeing, and it was assuming that you're really hitting that 0.8ms track seek time. I'd really expect that the time for a seek over 0.1% of the disk surface is actually quite a bit higher than the time for seek between adjacent tracks (which is something like ~0.0001% of the disk surface, assuming 1000 KTPI and 1 inch usable space).

Odd iozone results

Posted Jan 31, 2012 7:59 UTC (Tue) by sbergman27 (guest, #10767) [Link]

That's true enough. I had not actually forgotten about it, but when I did the calculation I was off by a factor of 10. (Still getting used to the fact that my new HP50g sometimes drops keystrokes if I enter too rapidly.) It didn't seem worth messing with.

Doing a linear interpolation between for 0.8ms to seek over 0.8% of the platter, and 8ms to seek over 50% of the platter, yields ~0.9ms for the seek. (And then we can add the 4ms for 1/2 rotation.) Whether using a linear interpolation is justified here is another matter.

However, let's not forget that there is *no* reason to think that the "Mixed Workload" phase is pure random read/write. The whole random seek thing is a separate side-question WRT the actual benchmark numbers I get. If the numbers *are* purely random access time for the drive, why do 4k records get me such incredibly dismal results, and 16 records get me near the peak sequential read/write rate of the drive? One would expect the random seek read/write rate to scale linearly with the record size.

BTW, thanks for the post. This has been a very interesting exercise.

-Steve

Odd iozone results

Posted Feb 2, 2012 20:52 UTC (Thu) by dgc (subscriber, #6611) [Link]

> However, let's not forget that there is *no* reason to think that the