Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

7.4M IOPS Achieved Per-Core With Newest Linux Patches

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • nils_
    replied
    Originally posted by coder View Post
    For what purpose?

    I was looking at Optane drives, but the 800p was only PCIe 3.0 x2. I thought it would make a good boot drive, and prices weren't too bad a couple years ago. I decided to pass, hoping they'd replace it with a faster version, but instead they seem to be mostly withdrawing Optane from the consumer market.
    The consumer drives aren't particularly useful and haven't been refreshed for PCIe4.0. I'm using the DC edition mainly as a test platform for high performance databases.

    Leave a comment:


  • piorunz
    replied
    Originally posted by coder View Post
    I got a couple PATA SSDs, probably about 8 years ago. Maybe you can still find them on ebay? I don't know if they'll work with any PATA controller card with an ISA or EISA interface, though. If your PC had PCI slot, then you'd be in luck. You can even find PCI-based SATA controller cards! I think I got a free one included with an early SATA HDD, in fact.
    Yes I am aware I can upgrade this PC. HDD will be tricky though, because BIOS only supports only CHS HDDs, you have to enter number of cylinders, heads, sectors and landing zone by hand. Meaning most likely no booting from SATA drive, unless it can emulate 2 GB CHS drive in BIOS, which I doubt it will.
    But that's not the point, I have, or I can acquire, plenty of hardware. I want to rebuilt it as it was, 1991 style. 104 MB HDD, no CD, Windows 95 installed via Floppy to HDD trick. 4 MB of RAM, 1MB VRAM. It will be rebuild as it was and re-sold as a retro - with 80386 CPU - PC.

    Leave a comment:


  • coder
    replied
    Originally posted by nils_ View Post
    I paid 1800€ for the 800GB P5800X.
    For what purpose?

    I was looking at Optane drives, but the 800p was only PCIe 3.0 x2. I thought it would make a good boot drive, and prices weren't too bad a couple years ago. I decided to pass, hoping they'd replace it with a faster version, but instead they seem to be mostly withdrawing Optane from the consumer market.

    Leave a comment:


  • coder
    replied
    Originally posted by torsionbar28 View Post
    Optane costs 1/2 what DRAM does, while offering similar performance characteristics,
    DRAM is an order of magnitude lower-latency and has several orders of magnitude better write endurance.

    Also, the SSD he used is a PCIe card, not a NVDIMM. That's what people doing big-time in-memory databases will probably be using.

    Leave a comment:


  • coder
    replied
    Originally posted by piorunz View Post
    While I was formatting my Fujitsu 0.000099 TB hard drive from 1991 last night. I am restoring a dead retro PC. Yes my friends it's a 104 MB hard drive. It took 20 minutes. 😁😁😁
    I got a couple PATA SSDs, probably about 8 years ago. Maybe you can still find them on ebay? I don't know if they'll work with any PATA controller card with an ISA or EISA interface, though. If your PC had PCI slot, then you'd be in luck. You can even find PCI-based SATA controller cards! I think I got a free one included with an early SATA HDD, in fact.

    Leave a comment:


  • coder
    replied
    Originally posted by bug77 View Post
    You want an obvious use case? Optane destroys SSDs in 4k random reads at QD1.
    That's a performance metric, not a use case. A use case is an example of what sort of tasks a user would perform that would noticeably benefit from high sequential, random 4k IOPS. Reboots would be one such example. That's about the only thing a normal user would do that comes to mind, where they could probably observe a performance improvement.

    Examples of things professionals might do could involve searching through GIS data or maybe volumetric medical imaging on a dataset that's too big to fit in memory.

    Leave a comment:


  • coder
    replied
    Originally posted by quaz0r View Post
    nobody seems to have the right mindset. when somebody re-engineers code to do something way faster and more efficient than before, that means the previous implementation was doing it wrong.
    It wasn't wrong, per se. Granted, AIO sucked, because it had limited filesystem support and you had to use O_DIRECT, which is (usually) bad for a number of reasons we needn't go into.

    Leaving that aside, the kernel managed to deliver good synchronous I/O performance via buffering, caching, and read-ahead optimizations. These were fine for sequential I/O, particularly when people were using HDD with up to only a couple hundred IOPS, and even SATA SSDs with some tens of thousands of IOPS.

    It's not until we reach NVME drives (i.e. the NAND flash ones) capable of a couple hundred thousand IOPS, where ioctl() overhead really starts to add up. If each syscall adds a couple microseconds of overhead, that's the point where optimizing some away is going to deliver measurable benefits. And that's what io_uring does, effectively. It reduces the number of syscalls you potentially need to make per I/O operation.

    Originally posted by quaz0r View Post
    if you one day discover a direct route to the grocery store, where before your route consisted of first driving 500 miles in the opposite direction and then driving in circles for a week,
    An apt analogy would be that when the only means of travel between continents was by boat, having to stop at the destination country's embassy and obtain a visa wasn't a major overhead. However, when you can take a direct flight on a jet plane, an embassy or consulate visit would be a significant overhead. So, the optimization of getting a visa online or even simply being able to travel with just your passport is a major win.

    Leave a comment:


  • bug77
    replied
    Originally posted by ermo View Post

    Cheers, thanks for reframing it. It makes perfect sense when viewed like that.

    No wonder consumers haven't really picked up on it as I don't necessarily see an obvious use case on the consumer end of things; but maybe that's just me being oblivious!
    You want an obvious use case? Optane destroys SSDs in 4k random reads at QD1.
    But it's too expensive for consumers still.

    Leave a comment:


  • ermo
    replied
    Originally posted by torsionbar28 View Post
    When you say "added cost" it sounds like you're comparing Optane to SSD, however the market for this product is not in displacing cheaper SSD, but in displacing more expensive DRAM. I.e. Optane targets enterprise workloads that would otherwise be run in RAM. In-memory databases are the obvious market, but I'm sure there are others. Optane costs 1/2 what DRAM does, while offering similar performance characteristics, plus it's non-volatile. Data analytics, Telecom equipment, and mobile advertising networks are big consumers of in-memory databases, so I imagine they have a keen interest in Optane, if nothing else, for reducing cost vs. using DRAM.
    Cheers, thanks for reframing it. It makes perfect sense when viewed like that.

    No wonder consumers haven't really picked up on it as I don't necessarily see an obvious use case on the consumer end of things; but maybe that's just me being oblivious!

    Leave a comment:


  • M@GOid
    replied
    Originally posted by onlyLinuxLuvUBack View Post
    This with newest amd(if you can get one) and a super expensive optane gen2 ? The intel drive probably costs almost a car ?
    They are not expensive, we are just poor:

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X