Hi everbody this is my first post, I have two test server .(Both of them is idle) db1 : RHEL4 OCFS2 db2 : RHEL3 OCFS I test the IO both of them The result is below. db1(Time Spend)db2(Time Spend)OS Test Command dd (1GB) (Yazma)0m0.796s0m18.420stime dd if=/dev/zero of=./sill.t bs=1M count=1000 dd (1GB) (Okuma)0m0.241s8m16.406stime dd of=/dev/zero if=./sill.t bs=1M count=1000 cp (1GB)0m0.986s7m32.452stime cp sill.t sill2.t Why db1 is too slow than db2 ? Anybody have idea ? My production database is oracle 9205 on RHEL3 and OCFS I test the 9208 on RHEL4 and OCFS2 . I will try to decide to upgrade or not... Thx.. ____________________________________________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Everyone is raving about the all-new Yahoo! Mail beta. http://new.mail.yahoo.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://oss.oracle.com/pipermail/ocfs2-users/attachments/20070116/f712094b/attachment.html
Hi,
It seems that you inverted the times on the chart.
Regards,
Luis
GOKHAN <agig2000@yahoo.com> wrote:
Hi everbody this is my first post,
I have two test server .(Both of them is idle)
db1 : RHEL4 OCFS2
db2 : RHEL3 OCFS
I test the IO both of them
The result is below.
db1(Time Spend) db2(Time Spend) OS Test Command dd
(1GB) (Yazma) 0m0.796s 0m18.420s time dd if=/dev/zero of=./sill.t bs=1M
count=1000 dd (1GB) (Okuma) 0m0.241s 8m16.406s time dd of=/dev/zero
if=./sill.t bs=1M count=1000 cp (1GB) 0m0.986s 7m32.452s time cp sill.t
sill2.t
Why db1 is too slow than db2 ?
Anybody have idea ?
My production database is oracle 9205 on RHEL3 and OCFS
I test the 9208 on RHEL4 and OCFS2 .
I will try to decide to upgrade or not...
Thx..
---------------------------------
Need Mail bonding?
Go to the Yahoo! Mail Q&A for great tips from Yahoo! Answers
users._______________________________________________
Ocfs2-users mailing list
Ocfs2-users@oss.oracle.com
http://oss.oracle.com/mailman/listinfo/ocfs2-users
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
http://oss.oracle.com/pipermail/ocfs2-users/attachments/20070116/beac5eb0/attachment.html
On Tue, Jan 16, 2007 at 01:28:41AM -0800, GOKHAN wrote:> Hi everbody this is my first post, > I have two test server .(Both of them is idle) > db1 : RHEL4 OCFS2 > db2 : RHEL3 OCFS > > I test the IO both of them > The result is below. > > db1(Time Spend)db2(Time Spend)OS Test Command > dd (1GB) (Yazma)0m0.796s0m18.420stime dd if=/dev/zero of=./sill.t bs=1M count=1000 > dd (1GB) (Okuma)0m0.241s8m16.406stime dd of=/dev/zero if=./sill.t bs=1M count=1000 > cp (1GB)0m0.986s7m32.452stime cp sill.t sill2.tYou are using dd(1), which does not use O_DIRECT. The original ocfs (on 2.4 kernels) does not really support buffered I/O well. What you are seeing is ocfs2 taking much better care of your buffered I/Os. They will be consistent across the cluster. In the ocfs case, you are caching a lot more because these safety precautions aren't taken. HOWEVER, the most important factor is that you are not using O_DIRECT. When you actually run the database, you _will_ be using O_DIRECT (make sure to mount ocfs2 with '-o datavolume'). Without the OS caching in the way, both filesystems should run at the same speed. The upshot is that buffered I/O operations (such as plain dd(1)) are often not good indicators of database speed. Joel -- "To announce that there must be no criticism of them president, or that we are to stand by the president, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public." - Theodore Roosevelt Joel Becker Principal Software Developer Oracle E-mail: joel.becker@oracle.com Phone: (650) 506-8127
Joel,
It is not using o_direct only if the coreutils package was not installed on
the RH3.0 machine. (coreutils-4.5.3-41.i386.rpm ).
http://oss.oracle.com/projects/coreutils/files/
If it is installed, then both tests are using O_DIRECT, and can be
compared.
I do not have both a OCFS and a OCFS2 environment to compare here, but I am
perceiving too a very slow performance with copy operations on the OCFS2 volume,
compared to what I was used to in OCFS.
Regards,
Luis
Joel Becker <Joel.Becker@oracle.com> wrote:
On Tue, Jan 16, 2007 at 01:28:41AM -0800, GOKHAN
wrote:> Hi everbody this is my first post,
> I have two test server .(Both of them is idle)
> db1 : RHEL4 OCFS2
> db2 : RHEL3 OCFS
>
> I test the IO both of them
> The result is below.
>
> db1(Time Spend)db2(Time Spend)OS Test Command
> dd (1GB) (Yazma)0m0.796s0m18.420stime dd if=/dev/zero of=./sill.t bs=1M
count=1000
> dd (1GB) (Okuma)0m0.241s8m16.406stime dd of=/dev/zero if=./sill.t bs=1M
count=1000
> cp (1GB)0m0.986s7m32.452stime cp sill.t sill2.t
You are using dd(1), which does not use O_DIRECT. The original
ocfs (on 2.4 kernels) does not really support buffered I/O well. What
you are seeing is ocfs2 taking much better care of your buffered I/Os.
They will be consistent across the cluster. In the ocfs case, you are
caching a lot more because these safety precautions aren't taken.
HOWEVER, the most important factor is that you are not using
O_DIRECT. When you actually run the database, you _will_ be using
O_DIRECT (make sure to mount ocfs2 with '-o datavolume'). Without the
OS caching in the way, both filesystems should run at the same speed.
The upshot is that buffered I/O operations (such as plain dd(1))
are often not good indicators of database speed.
Joel
--
"To announce that there must be no criticism of them president, or
that we are to stand by the president, right or wrong, is not only
unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American
public."
- Theodore Roosevelt
Joel Becker
Principal Software Developer
Oracle
E-mail: joel.becker@oracle.com
Phone: (650) 506-8127
_______________________________________________
Ocfs2-users mailing list
Ocfs2-users@oss.oracle.com
http://oss.oracle.com/mailman/listinfo/ocfs2-users
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
http://oss.oracle.com/pipermail/ocfs2-users/attachments/20070117/72563022/attachment-0001.html
coreutils-4.5.3-26 is installed on RH3
----------------
RH3:
more /etc/issue
Red Hat Enterprise Linux AS release 3 (Taroon Update 2)
uname -a
Linux dbcluster7 2.4.21-40.EL #1 SMP Thu Feb 2 22:12:47 EST 2006 ia64 ia64 ia64
GNU/Linux
---------------
Message: 7
Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2007 02:06:37 -0800 (PST)
From: Luis Freitas <lfreitas34@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: [Ocfs2-users] ocfs Vs ocfs2
To: ocfs2-users@oss.oracle.com, ocfs-users@oss.oracle.com
Message-ID: <706536.16119.qm@web51412.mail.yahoo.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Joel,
It is not using o_direct only if the coreutils package was not installed on
the RH3.0 machine. (coreutils-4.5.3-41.i386.rpm ).
http://oss.oracle.com/projects/coreutils/files/
If it is installed, then both tests are using O_DIRECT, and can be
compared.
I do not have both a OCFS and a OCFS2 environment to compare here, but I am
perceiving too a very slow performance with copy operations on the OCFS2 volume,
compared to what I was used to in OCFS.
Regards,
Luis
Joel Becker <Joel.Becker@oracle.com> wrote:
On Tue, Jan 16, 2007 at 01:28:41AM -0800, GOKHAN
wrote:> Hi everbody this is my first post,
> I have two test server .(Both of them is idle)
> db1 : RHEL4 OCFS2
> db2 : RHEL3 OCFS
>
> I test the IO both of them
> The result is below.
>
> db1(Time Spend)db2(Time Spend)OS Test Command
> dd (1GB) (Yazma)0m0.796s0m18.420stime dd if=/dev/zero of=./sill.t bs=1M
count=1000
> dd (1GB) (Okuma)0m0.241s8m16.406stime dd of=/dev/zero if=./sill.t bs=1M
count=1000
> cp (1GB)0m0.986s7m32.452stime cp sill.t sill2.t
You are using dd(1), which does not use O_DIRECT. The original
ocfs (on 2.4 kernels) does not really support buffered I/O well. What
you are seeing is ocfs2 taking much better care of your buffered I/Os.
They will be consistent across the cluster. In the ocfs case, you are
caching a lot more because these safety precautions aren't taken.
HOWEVER, the most important factor is that you are not using
O_DIRECT. When you actually run the database, you _will_ be using
O_DIRECT (make sure to mount ocfs2 with '-o datavolume'). Without the
OS caching in the way, both filesystems should run at the same speed.
The upshot is that buffered I/O operations (such as plain dd(1))
are often not good indicators of database speed.
Joel
--
"To announce that there must be no criticism of them president, or
that we are to stand by the president, right or wrong, is not only
unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American
public."
- Theodore Roosevelt
Joel Becker
Principal Software Developer
Oracle
E-mail: joel.becker@oracle.com
Phone: (650) 506-8127
____________________________________________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Everyone is raving about the all-new Yahoo! Mail beta.
http://new.mail.yahoo.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
http://oss.oracle.com/pipermail/ocfs2-users/attachments/20070117/1636e16e/attachment.html