1 |
On Mon, Aug 3, 2020 at 1:30 AM Dale <rdalek1967@×××××.com> wrote: |
2 |
> |
3 |
> Little update here. Rich, I think you mentioned it would slow down when it ran out of PMR space while trying to redo the shingled part. Up until now, I hadn't ran into that issue. It seems the PMR section for this drive is somewhere around 40 or 50GBs, maybe 60GBs. I hadn't had time for backups in over a week so it was a good bit larger than usual. It was around 70GBs, maybe 75. When it got close to the end of the rsync process, I noticed it slowed down quite a bit. I'd guess about half or so. Usually it runs at around 180 to 190MBs/sec for larger files. Pretty close to the end, rsync was showing around 100MBs/sec at best. It was a little over on some but mostly a little below that. Earlier in the process, it was the normal speed. |
4 |
|
5 |
I doubt this particular drop is the result of SMR, assuming 100MB/s is |
6 |
the instantaneous speed. 100MB/s is still reasonable for a hard drive |
7 |
- on newer CMR drives I've seen the speed of dd drop from 200MB/s to |
8 |
100MB/s for sequential writes as the heads move from one end of the |
9 |
drive to the other, and then it goes back up to 200MB/s if you start |
10 |
over at the beginning (badblocks testing and so on). |
11 |
|
12 |
That level of drop is probably more likely to be due to filesystem |
13 |
overhead and so on - fragmentation/etc. When SMR buffer overrun |
14 |
occurs you REALLY hit a wall and the rates drop quite a bit more than |
15 |
that. If it were a difference of only 50% most would probably |
16 |
tolerate it. |
17 |
|
18 |
Now, if 100MB/s were an updating average across the entire run then |
19 |
that would be a different matter, because that would mean that it was |
20 |
running at 200MB/s for most of the run, and then probably dropping |
21 |
much closer to 0 for a while so as to drive the overall average down |
22 |
to 100MB/s. I'm not sure where you're getting those numbers from so I |
23 |
don't know what period that 100MB/s reflects. For an instantaneous |
24 |
speed I'd consider it a completely reasonable performance for a |
25 |
typical hard drive when you're writing to a filesystem. If you were |
26 |
using dd or maybe copies of very large files on an efficient |
27 |
filesystem you would get better results. |
28 |
|
29 |
-- |
30 |
Rich |