[DRBD-user] kvm, drbd, elevator, rotational - quite an interesting co-operation

Javier Guerra javier at guerrag.com
Fri Jul 3 15:06:07 CEST 2009

Note: "permalinks" may not be as permanent as we would like,
direct links of old sources may well be a few messages off.

Lars Ellenberg wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 02, 2009 at 11:55:05PM +0400, Michael Tokarev wrote:
> > drbd: what's the difference in write pattern on secondary and
> >   primary nodes?  Why `rotational' flag makes very big difference
> >   on secondary and no difference whatsoever on primary?
> not much.
> disk IO on Primary is usually submitted in the context of the
> submitter (vm subsystem, filesystem or the process itself)
> whereas on Secondary, IO is naturally submitted just by the
> DRBD receiver and worker threads.

just like with KVM itself, using several worker threads against a single IO device makes performance heavily dependent on a sensible elevator algorithm.  ideally, there should be only one worker thread for each thread/process originating the initial write.  unfortunately DRBD, being a block/level protocol, might have a hard time unraveling which writes belong to which process.  maybe just merging adjacent (in block address space, not in time) write operations would keep most of the relationships.


More information about the drbd-user mailing list