February 10, 2011
If you’re old enough to remember floppy drives, you’ve heard the symptoms of a disk I/O bottleneck. For example, while Oregon Trail loaded the next scene, you’d hear the drive grinding away, reading data from the disk. The CPU would sit idle during this time, twiddling its fingers waiting for data. If that floppy drive was faster, you'd be running the Columbia River rapids by now.
It’s more difficult to detect an I/O bottleneck if the disk isn’t on your desktop. I’ll look at four important
Disk I/O encompasses the input/output operations on a physical disk. If you’re reading data from a file on a disk, the processor needs to wait for the file to be read (the same goes for writing).
The killer when working with a disk? Access time. This is the time required for a computer to process a data request from the processor and then retrieve the required data from the storage device. Since hard disks are mechanical, you need to wait for the disk to rotate to the required disk sector.
Disk latency is around 13ms, but it depends on the quality and rotational speed of the hard drive. RAM latency is around 83 nanoseconds. How big is the difference? If RAM was an F-18 Hornet with a max speed of 1,190 mph (more than 1.5x the speed of sound), disk access speed is a banana slug with a top speed of 0.007 mph.
This is why caching data in memory is so important for performance – the difference in latency between RAM and a hard drive is enormous*.
Your I/O wait measurement is the canary for an I/O bottleneck. I/O Wait is the percentage of time your processors are waiting on the disk.
The disk is being accessed while the rows are
You can check your I/O
If your I/O wait percentage is greater than (1/# of CPU cores) then your CPUs are waiting a significant amount of time for the disk subsystem to catch up.
In the output above, I/O wait is 12.1%. This server has 8 cores (via
cat /proc/cpuinfo). This is very close to (1/8 cores = 0.125). Disk access may be slowing the application down if I/O wait is consistently around this threshold.
For random disk access (a database, mail server, file server, etc), you should focus on how many input/output operations can be performed per-second (IOPS).
Four primary factors impact IOPS:
A more exact way to determine just how close you are to your maximum I/O throughput is to calculate your theoretical IOPS and compare it to your actual IOPS. If the numbers are close, there may be an I/O issue.
You can determine theoretical IOPS via
|I/O Operations Per-Sec =||number of disks * Average I/O Operations on 1 disk per-sec|
All but one of the pieces in this equation can be determined from your hardware specs. You’ll need to figure out the read/write workload though – it’s application dependent. For this, use a tool like
Read & write throughput captured via the Scout Device Input/Output plugin. In this case, the vast majority of the workload is dedicated to writing.
Once you’ve calculated your theoretical IOPS, compare it to
Even if a banana slug follows all of the tips in The 4 Hour Body, it will never be as fast as an F-18 Hornet. Likewise, you can tune your disk hardware for better performance, but it’s complicated and will not approach the speed of RAM.
If you’re hitting a disk I/O bottleneck now, tuning your hardware likely isn’t the fastest remedy. Hardware changes likely involve significant testing, data migration, and communication between application developers and
When we see I/O bottlenecks at the Blue Box Group, we first try to tweak the service that’s using the most I/O and cache more of its data in RAM. For example, we usually configure our database servers to have as much RAM as possible (up to 64 GB or so), and then have MySQL cache as much as possible in memory.
Adding servers can be a band-aid for slow code. Scout APM helps you find and fix your inefficient and costly code. We automatically identify N+1 SQL calls, memory bloat, and other code-related issues so you can spend less time debugging and more time programming.
Ready to optimize? Sign up for a free trial.
* - If the difference between RAM and disk latency seems striking to you, it should -- it's a massive difference in performance. If it doesn't jibe with your day-to-day experience with your computer, keep in mind three things: 1) 13ms is the time for a hard drive seek -- if you're reading contiguous data from an unfragmented file, then the hard drive's *transfer rate* (not the seek speed) comes to bear. 2) 13ms is still extraordinarily fast by human standards. 3) There are multiple mechanisms in place to ameliorate the impact of hard drive's dismal performance, like paging, write-queuing, and HD-resident cache.