WAFL performance VS sequential reads: part III, FC LUN performance from AIX vs read_realloc

Continuing my series about LUN fragmentation in WALF (part1, part2) I wanted to give a try to read_realloc option. Mostly the same storage system (still DataOnTap 7.3.2) and settings were used with an exception that i’ve even used more powerful AIX with POWER7 CPU cores system (shouldn’t matter as i was completely not constrained with CPU power during the benchmarks).

The methodology was simple:
1) Do a lot of random and sequential writes to JFS2 on top of that LUN on FlexVol having read_realloc=off to fragment the LUN as much as possible
2) Start a loop of random large reads (simulating let’s say many random full table scans of up to 1MB in Oracle data file) on top of that JFS2 filesystem (BTW: this time without CIO)

The full measurement took something about 18 hours (yes, storage was hammered 18 hours all the time with just reads). Results are pretty interesting:

… it basically shows how Netapp storage can self-optimize and adapt based on the workload. Now i’m just wondering how it works under the hood (i.e. what is the trade-off or worst possible scenario for this kind of setting). What was even more interesting is that reallocate measure indicated after the whole cycle that the LUN was really nicely de-fragmented:

Thu Jul  7 03:32:20 EDT [X: wafl.reallocate.check.value:info]: Allocation measurement check on '/vol/fc_fill_aggr_sm/lun' is 3.

One Response to “WAFL performance VS sequential reads: part III, FC LUN performance from AIX vs read_realloc”

  1. Chris Madden says:

    In the methodology don’t you miss a step 1.5) where you set read_realloc=on?