17

I just finished a hardware build expecting a big gain from the new NVMe drive. My prior performance was lower than expected (~3gb transferred), so I've replaced the motherboard/cpu/memory/hdd. While performance is double what it was, it is still half what I get on my 3 year old macbook pro with a SATA6 drive.

  • CPU: i7-5820k 6core
  • Mobo: MSI X99A MPOWER
  • Memory: 32GB
  • Drive: Samsung 950 pro NVMe PCIe

Ubuntu (also confirmed with 16.04.1 LTS):

Release:    15.10
Codename:   wily

4.2.0-16-generic

$ sudo blkid
[sudo] password for kross: 
/dev/nvme0n1p4: UUID="2997749f-1895-4581-abd3-6ccac79d4575" TYPE="swap"
/dev/nvme0n1p1: LABEL="SYSTEM" UUID="C221-7CA5" TYPE="vfat"
/dev/nvme0n1p3: UUID="c7dc0813-3d18-421c-9c91-25ce21892b9d" TYPE="ext4"

Here are my test results:

sysbench --test=fileio --file-total-size=128G prepare
sysbench --test=fileio --file-total-size=128G --file-test-mode=rndrw --max-time=300 --max-requests=0 run
sysbench --test=fileio --file-total-size=128G cleanup


Operations performed:  228000 Read, 152000 Write, 486274 Other = 866274 Total
Read 3.479Gb  Written 2.3193Gb  Total transferred 5.7983Gb  (19.791Mb/sec)
 1266.65 Requests/sec executed

Test execution summary:
    total time:                          300.0037s
    total number of events:              380000
    total time taken by event execution: 23.6549
    per-request statistics:
         min:                                  0.01ms
         avg:                                  0.06ms
         max:                                  4.29ms
         approx.  95 percentile:               0.13ms

Threads fairness:
    events (avg/stddev):           380000.0000/0.00
    execution time (avg/stddev):   23.6549/0.00

The scheduler is set to none:

# cat /sys/block/nvme0n1/queue/scheduler
none

Here is the lspci information:

# lspci -vv -s 02:00.0
02:00.0 Non-Volatile memory controller: Samsung Electronics Co Ltd Device a802 (rev 01) (prog-if 02 [NVM Express])
    Subsystem: Samsung Electronics Co Ltd Device a801
    Physical Slot: 2-1
    Control: I/O+ Mem+ BusMaster+ SpecCycle- MemWINV- VGASnoop- ParErr- Stepping- SERR+ FastB2B- DisINTx+
    Status: Cap+ 66MHz- UDF- FastB2B- ParErr- DEVSEL=fast >TAbort- <TAbort- <MAbort- >SERR- <PERR- INTx-
    Latency: 0, Cache Line Size: 32 bytes
    Interrupt: pin A routed to IRQ 45
    Region 0: Memory at fb610000 (64-bit, non-prefetchable) [size=16K]
    Region 2: I/O ports at e000 [size=256]
    Expansion ROM at fb600000 [disabled] [size=64K]
    Capabilities: [40] Power Management version 3
        Flags: PMEClk- DSI- D1- D2- AuxCurrent=0mA PME(D0-,D1-,D2-,D3hot-,D3cold-)
        Status: D0 NoSoftRst+ PME-Enable- DSel=0 DScale=0 PME-
    Capabilities: [50] MSI: Enable- Count=1/8 Maskable- 64bit+
        Address: 0000000000000000  Data: 0000
    Capabilities: [70] Express (v2) Endpoint, MSI 00
        DevCap: MaxPayload 128 bytes, PhantFunc 0, Latency L0s unlimited, L1 unlimited
            ExtTag- AttnBtn- AttnInd- PwrInd- RBE+ FLReset+
        DevCtl: Report errors: Correctable- Non-Fatal- Fatal- Unsupported-
            RlxdOrd- ExtTag- PhantFunc- AuxPwr- NoSnoop+ FLReset-
            MaxPayload 128 bytes, MaxReadReq 512 bytes
        DevSta: CorrErr+ UncorrErr- FatalErr- UnsuppReq+ AuxPwr+ TransPend-
        LnkCap: Port #0, Speed 8GT/s, Width x4, ASPM L1, Exit Latency L0s <4us, L1 <64us
            ClockPM+ Surprise- LLActRep- BwNot- ASPMOptComp+
        LnkCtl: ASPM Disabled; RCB 64 bytes Disabled- CommClk+
            ExtSynch- ClockPM- AutWidDis- BWInt- AutBWInt-
        LnkSta: Speed 8GT/s, Width x4, TrErr- Train- SlotClk+ DLActive- BWMgmt- ABWMgmt-
        DevCap2: Completion Timeout: Not Supported, TimeoutDis+, LTR+, OBFF Not Supported
        DevCtl2: Completion Timeout: 50us to 50ms, TimeoutDis-, LTR-, OBFF Disabled
        LnkCtl2: Target Link Speed: 8GT/s, EnterCompliance- SpeedDis-
             Transmit Margin: Normal Operating Range, EnterModifiedCompliance- ComplianceSOS-
             Compliance De-emphasis: -6dB
        LnkSta2: Current De-emphasis Level: -6dB, EqualizationComplete+, EqualizationPhase1+
             EqualizationPhase2+, EqualizationPhase3+, LinkEqualizationRequest-
    Capabilities: [b0] MSI-X: Enable+ Count=9 Masked-
        Vector table: BAR=0 offset=00003000
        PBA: BAR=0 offset=00002000
    Capabilities: [100 v2] Advanced Error Reporting
        UESta:  DLP- SDES- TLP- FCP- CmpltTO- CmpltAbrt- UnxCmplt- RxOF- MalfTLP- ECRC- UnsupReq- ACSViol-
        UEMsk:  DLP- SDES- TLP- FCP- CmpltTO- CmpltAbrt- UnxCmplt- RxOF- MalfTLP- ECRC- UnsupReq- ACSViol-
        UESvrt: DLP+ SDES+ TLP- FCP+ CmpltTO- CmpltAbrt- UnxCmplt- RxOF+ MalfTLP+ ECRC- UnsupReq- ACSViol-
        CESta:  RxErr- BadTLP- BadDLLP- Rollover- Timeout- NonFatalErr+
        CEMsk:  RxErr- BadTLP- BadDLLP- Rollover- Timeout- NonFatalErr+
        AERCap: First Error Pointer: 00, GenCap+ CGenEn- ChkCap+ ChkEn-
    Capabilities: [148 v1] Device Serial Number 00-00-00-00-00-00-00-00
    Capabilities: [158 v1] Power Budgeting <?>
    Capabilities: [168 v1] #19
    Capabilities: [188 v1] Latency Tolerance Reporting
        Max snoop latency: 0ns
        Max no snoop latency: 0ns
    Capabilities: [190 v1] L1 PM Substates
        L1SubCap: PCI-PM_L1.2+ PCI-PM_L1.1+ ASPM_L1.2+ ASPM_L1.1+ L1_PM_Substates+
              PortCommonModeRestoreTime=10us PortTPowerOnTime=10us
    Kernel driver in use: nvme

hdparm:

$ sudo hdparm -tT --direct /dev/nvme0n1

/dev/nvme0n1:
 Timing O_DIRECT cached reads:   2328 MB in  2.00 seconds = 1163.98 MB/sec
 Timing O_DIRECT disk reads: 5250 MB in  3.00 seconds = 1749.28 MB/sec

hdparm -v:

 sudo hdparm -v /dev/nvme0n1

/dev/nvme0n1:
SG_IO: questionable sense data, results may be incorrect
 multcount     =  0 (off)
 readonly      =  0 (off)
 readahead     = 256 (on)
 geometry      = 488386/64/32, sectors = 1000215216, start = 0

fstab

UUID=453cf71b-38ca-49a7-90ba-1aaa858f4806 /               ext4    noatime,nodiratime,errors=remount-ro 0       1
# /boot/efi was on /dev/sda1 during installation
#UUID=C221-7CA5  /boot/efi       vfat    defaults        0       1
# swap was on /dev/sda4 during installation
UUID=8f716653-e696-44b1-8510-28a1c53f0e8d none            swap    sw              0       0
UUID=C221-7CA5  /boot/efi       vfat    defaults        0       1

fio

This has some comparable benchmarks it is way off. When I tested with fio and disabled sync, it is a different story:

sync=1
1 job  - write: io=145712KB, bw=2428.5KB/s, iops=607, runt= 60002msec
7 jobs - write: io=245888KB, bw=4097.9KB/s, iops=1024, runt= 60005msec

sync=0
1 job  - write: io=8157.9MB, bw=139225KB/s, iops=34806, runt= 60001msec
7 jobs - write: io=32668MB, bw=557496KB/s, iops=139373, runt= 60004msec

Here's the full sync results for one job and 7 jobs:

$ sudo fio --filename=/dev/nvme0n1 --direct=1 --sync=1 --rw=write --bs=4k --numjobs=1 --iodepth=1 --runtime=60 --time_based --group_reporting --name=journal-test
journal-test: (g=0): rw=write, bs=4K-4K/4K-4K/4K-4K, ioengine=sync, iodepth=1
fio-2.1.11
Starting 1 process
Jobs: 1 (f=1): [W(1)] [100.0% done] [0KB/2368KB/0KB /s] [0/592/0 iops] [eta 00m:00s]
journal-test: (groupid=0, jobs=1): err= 0: pid=18009: Wed Nov 18 18:14:03 2015
  write: io=145712KB, bw=2428.5KB/s, iops=607, runt= 60002msec
    clat (usec): min=1442, max=12836, avg=1643.09, stdev=546.22
     lat (usec): min=1442, max=12836, avg=1643.67, stdev=546.23
    clat percentiles (usec):
     |  1.00th=[ 1480],  5.00th=[ 1496], 10.00th=[ 1512], 20.00th=[ 1528],
     | 30.00th=[ 1576], 40.00th=[ 1592], 50.00th=[ 1608], 60.00th=[ 1608],
     | 70.00th=[ 1608], 80.00th=[ 1624], 90.00th=[ 1640], 95.00th=[ 1672],
     | 99.00th=[ 2192], 99.50th=[ 6944], 99.90th=[ 7328], 99.95th=[ 7328],
     | 99.99th=[ 7520]
    bw (KB  /s): min= 2272, max= 2528, per=100.00%, avg=2430.76, stdev=61.45
    lat (msec) : 2=98.44%, 4=0.58%, 10=0.98%, 20=0.01%
  cpu          : usr=0.39%, sys=3.11%, ctx=109285, majf=0, minf=8
  IO depths    : 1=100.0%, 2=0.0%, 4=0.0%, 8=0.0%, 16=0.0%, 32=0.0%, >=64=0.0%
     submit    : 0=0.0%, 4=100.0%, 8=0.0%, 16=0.0%, 32=0.0%, 64=0.0%, >=64=0.0%
     complete  : 0=0.0%, 4=100.0%, 8=0.0%, 16=0.0%, 32=0.0%, 64=0.0%, >=64=0.0%
     issued    : total=r=0/w=36428/d=0, short=r=0/w=0/d=0
     latency   : target=0, window=0, percentile=100.00%, depth=1

Run status group 0 (all jobs):
  WRITE: io=145712KB, aggrb=2428KB/s, minb=2428KB/s, maxb=2428KB/s, mint=60002msec, maxt=60002msec

Disk stats (read/write):
  nvme0n1: ios=69/72775, merge=0/0, ticks=0/57772, in_queue=57744, util=96.25%

$ sudo fio --filename=/dev/nvme0n1 --direct=1 --sync=1 --rw=write --bs=4k --numjobs=7 --iodepth=1 --runtime=60 --time_based --group_reporting --name=journal-test
journal-test: (g=0): rw=write, bs=4K-4K/4K-4K/4K-4K, ioengine=sync, iodepth=1
...
fio-2.1.11
Starting 7 processes
Jobs: 6 (f=6): [W(2),_(1),W(4)] [50.4% done] [0KB/4164KB/0KB /s] [0/1041/0 iops] [eta 01m:00s]
journal-test: (groupid=0, jobs=7): err= 0: pid=18025: Wed Nov 18 18:15:10 2015
  write: io=245888KB, bw=4097.9KB/s, iops=1024, runt= 60005msec
    clat (usec): min=0, max=107499, avg=6828.48, stdev=3056.21
     lat (usec): min=0, max=107499, avg=6829.10, stdev=3056.16
    clat percentiles (usec):
     |  1.00th=[    0],  5.00th=[ 2992], 10.00th=[ 4512], 20.00th=[ 4704],
     | 30.00th=[ 5088], 40.00th=[ 6176], 50.00th=[ 6304], 60.00th=[ 7520],
     | 70.00th=[ 7776], 80.00th=[ 9024], 90.00th=[10048], 95.00th=[12480],
     | 99.00th=[15936], 99.50th=[18048], 99.90th=[22400], 99.95th=[23936],
     | 99.99th=[27008]
    bw (KB  /s): min=  495, max=  675, per=14.29%, avg=585.60, stdev=28.07
    lat (usec) : 2=4.41%
    lat (msec) : 2=0.57%, 4=4.54%, 10=80.32%, 20=9.92%, 50=0.24%
    lat (msec) : 250=0.01%
  cpu          : usr=0.14%, sys=0.72%, ctx=173735, majf=0, minf=63
  IO depths    : 1=100.0%, 2=0.0%, 4=0.0%, 8=0.0%, 16=0.0%, 32=0.0%, >=64=0.0%
     submit    : 0=0.0%, 4=100.0%, 8=0.0%, 16=0.0%, 32=0.0%, 64=0.0%, >=64=0.0%
     complete  : 0=0.0%, 4=100.0%, 8=0.0%, 16=0.0%, 32=0.0%, 64=0.0%, >=64=0.0%
     issued    : total=r=0/w=61472/d=0, short=r=0/w=0/d=0
     latency   : target=0, window=0, percentile=100.00%, depth=1

Run status group 0 (all jobs):
  WRITE: io=245888KB, aggrb=4097KB/s, minb=4097KB/s, maxb=4097KB/s, mint=60005msec, maxt=60005msec

Disk stats (read/write):
  nvme0n1: ios=21/122801, merge=0/0, ticks=0/414660, in_queue=414736, util=99.90%

Alignment

I have checked the alignment with parted, as well as did the math based on http://www.intel.com/content/dam/www/public/us/en/documents/technology-briefs/ssd-partition-alignment-tech-brief.pdf

kross@camacho:~$ sudo parted
GNU Parted 3.2
Using /dev/nvme0n1
Welcome to GNU Parted! Type 'help' to view a list of commands.
(parted) unit s                                                           
(parted) print all                                                        
Model: Unknown (unknown)
Disk /dev/nvme0n1: 1000215216s
Sector size (logical/physical): 512B/512B
Partition Table: gpt
Disk Flags: 

Number  Start       End          Size        File system     Name                                 Flags
 1      2048s       206847s      204800s     fat32           EFI system partition                 boot, esp
 2      206848s     486957055s   486750208s  ntfs                                                 msftdata
 3      486957056s  487878655s   921600s     ntfs                                                 hidden, diag
 4      590608384s  966787071s   376178688s  ext4
 5      966787072s  1000214527s  33427456s   linux-swap(v1)

kross@camacho:~$ sudo parted /dev/nvme0n1
GNU Parted 3.2
Using /dev/nvme0n1
Welcome to GNU Parted! Type 'help' to view a list of commands.
(parted) align-check opt 1                                                
1 aligned
(parted) align-check opt 2
2 aligned
(parted) align-check opt 3
3 aligned
(parted) align-check opt 4
4 aligned
(parted) align-check opt 5
5 aligned

TLDR;

I feel like I have something fundamentally set incorrectly, though my research hasn't turned up anything. I'm expecting throughput ~4x my 3yr old macbook pro w/SATA6, and I'm getting 1/2 of it with NVMe. I added noatime,nodiratime which gave me a very small improvement, but nothing like the 4x I'm expecting. I have re-partitioned/re-installed fresh 15.10 server just to be sure I didn't have anything lingering, and had the same results.

Are my fio results above of sync/no sync indicative of a problem?

So I have a clean slate and can try anything. What can I try to get my performance up to par? Any references are welcome.

  • What's the output of smartctl --scan and then a smartctl --all /dev/xxx where xxx is whatever came up in the first command??? – Fabby Nov 18 '15 at 23:16
  • @fabby apt-get install smartmontools fails with grub-probe: error: cannot find a GRUB drive for /dev/nvme0n1p3. Check your device.map.. It appears (based on my endeavors) that update-grub doesn't work well due to a grub-probe error. smartctl -i /dev/nvme0n1 returns /dev/nvme0n1: Unable to detect device type. Please specify device type with the -d option. NVMe does not appear in the smartctl -h as a device type. – kross Nov 19 '15 at 0:08
  • what's the output of uname --kernel-release&&lsb_release --code --short??? – Fabby Nov 19 '15 at 0:22
  • 4.2.0-16-generic wily – kross Nov 19 '15 at 0:23
  • I could be completely wrong and I can't find the source currently, but as I have it in mind, you need a Skylake processor to run those SSD's at full speed... – wawa Nov 19 '15 at 0:39
5

Caution: This answer is old. As of Linux 4.19 blk_mq is the default scheduler. It is most likely that the problem for your PCIe NVMe SSD running slow stems form elsewhere.

Original answer:

Please add

scsi_mod.use_blk_mq=1

to your kernel boot parameters, otherwise I don't think you will see the benefit of NVMe's increased command queue and command per queue.

Note: I know it's for arch but you might also want to take a look at the Wiki for more info about tuning I/O.

  • 2
    Thank you for adding this, I tried it on Ubuntu 16.04.1 LTS and saw no difference. I was quite hopeful, but unfortunately this didn't change anything. – kross Sep 9 '16 at 21:06
  • 2
    Same for me, no noticeable difference in performance from hdparm benchmarks. – wordsforthewise Nov 16 '17 at 22:23
  • Same for me. I've updated my answer below showing a 1 second decrease in boot speed. – WinEunuuchs2Unix Oct 8 '18 at 19:58
4

Thank you for your question, it has been incredibly helpful for me.

I have a very similar experience, different hardware setup (I am using an Intel NVMe SSD). But I am also running Ubuntu 16.04. Given your evidence and a similar result found in this article I was convinced that the issue was with how Ubuntu was setting up the NVMe drives.

I was determined to solve the issue without giving up completely on Ubuntu. But no matter what I did, I was not able to get speeds above 2000 MB/sec when testing with hdparm exactly as you described.

So, I did some digging, and found a guide provided by Intel. I tried everything they suggested in this guide and found that one part was different. Near the bottom it discusses aligning the drive partitions correctly. This is the one part that didn't match up with my installation. My starting block was not divisible by 4096 bytes. It was using a 512 byte sector size instead of a 4k sector size.

Sure enough, I formatted the disk to start the partition at a value divisible by 4096 and FINALLY I was able to break speeds of 2000 MB/s.

Right now it is averaging 2.3 GB/s when I expect it to be a bit higher. I blame this on the fact that when I run sudo fdisk -lthe NVMe drive is still shown with a physical sector size of 512 bytes. I plan to continue investigating but I hope this helps you!

  • Thanks, I will check my alignment again. I know I investigated this at one point, but it is definitely worth taking a fresh look with this information. – kross Sep 30 '16 at 20:02
  • I updated the question with my alignment. parted says it is aligned, based on the 512 block size, but it isn't divisible by 4096. So I just want to confirm: your sector size remains at 512 and the only thing you did is start the partition at a location divisible by 4096, correct? – kross Oct 5 '16 at 14:49
  • Good explanation: blog.kihltech.com/2014/02/… – kross Oct 5 '16 at 15:12
  • 1
    Ugh, now what to do with my existing disk...try and resize/move, or dd, hmmm, not sure. Indeed this seems to be the root cause though. – kross Oct 5 '16 at 15:13
  • Another resource: intel.com/content/dam/www/public/us/en/documents/… – kross Oct 5 '16 at 16:01
3

This thread is one year old (October 2016). One of the highest upvoted answers recommends an Intel NVMe driver that is two years old (2015).

In February 2017 though Samsung released a Firmware Update that uses a Linux based boot ISO installer. On the same link there are drivers you can install for Windows 7/8/10. I'll be installing both soon on my new Samsung 960 Pro and brand new Dell based i7-6700 laptop. Along with flashing BIOS and updating other Dell based drivers.

I think it's important to revisit these old threads and provide new users with current (as of October 11, 2017 anyways) links so they have all options open.

There are many google searches returned for slow performance of Samsung 960 Pro under Linux being half the speed of Windows so I encourage everyone to search out as many options as possible.


After implementing scsi_mod.use_blk_mq=1 kernel parameter:

$ systemd-analyze
Startup finished in 7.052s (firmware) + 6.644s (loader) + 2.427s (kernel) + 8.440s (userspace) = 24.565s

Removing the kernel parameter and rebooting:

$ systemd-analyze
Startup finished in 7.060s (firmware) + 6.045s (loader) + 2.712s (kernel) + 8.168s (userspace) = 23.986s

So it would appear now that scsi_mod.use_blk_mq=1 makes system slower not faster. At one time it may have been beneficial though.

1

Here's some interesting information: on Windows, the drive doesn't perform according to review benchmarks until cache flushing is disabled. Usually this isn't done directly; instead, the vendor's driver (in this case, Samsung NVMe driver) is installed.

If you benchmark with the vendor's driver, and then disable cache flushing in Windows, you get the same numbers. This would unlikely be the case if the vendor wasn't ignoring cache flushing.

Translated to Linux-land, that means that on Windows, to get the big benchmark numbers you see in all the reviews, you need to disable fsync, with all that means for reliability (no fsync, or specifically, no write barrier, means that power loss at the wrong time could break the whole FS, depending on implementation - reordered writes create "impossible" situations).

Samsung's "data center" SSDs come with capacitors to ensure cached data is flushed correctly. This is not the case with their consumer drives.

I've just worked this out from first principles, having added a 1TB NVMe to my new build yesterday. I'm not particularly happy, and I've initiated contact with Samsung support to see what they say - but I doubt I'll hear back.

  • Did they say anything? – Csaba Toth Feb 19 '18 at 3:07
0

I can't comment yet, so I have to answer. :-(

I don't have a comparable drive, but I would guess that the values from hdparm are fine. If so I would assume that you just use sysbench in a suboptimal way. Try experimenting with the parameter --num-threads to generate more load on the drive. At least on my computer the difference between 1 thread (the default) and 16 threads was about 1:4 on a standard SATA SSD. My understanding is that NVMe drives begin to shine the more parallel tasks are putting load on them.

  • I'm using it in an identical way to the mbpro, and it is 1/2 the performance, which is the thing that doesn't make sense. – kross Nov 19 '15 at 0:03
  • I just added a fio test with 1 and 7 threads, and a reference to a bunch of benchmarks using it as a basis. – kross Nov 19 '15 at 0:24
0

Most SSDs fall flat on their face if sync=1 (D_SYNC) flag. Unfortunately, this is a well known issue for Ceph journals. See this page for more info, and a list of drives that perform well with sync enabled:

http://www.sebastien-han.fr/blog/2014/10/10/ceph-how-to-test-if-your-ssd-is-suitable-as-a-journal-device/

  • Thanks but I already referenced that article above under the fio heading and you can see from the benchmarks there that my SSD is underperforming Intel 750 NVMe 400GB 261 MB/s (1 job) 884 MB/s (5 jobs) by a large margin with sync, and even underperforming against the previous generation Samsung XP941 256GB 2.5 MB/s (1 job) 5 MB/s (7 jobs). So while it may be well known, it is still less than it should be. – kross Nov 24 '15 at 16:01
0

My M.2 slot was capped at 10Mbps. I used a PCIe adapter to get around this limitation: https://www.amazon.com/Lycom-DT-120-M-2-PCIe-to-PCIe-3-0-x4-Adapter-Support-M-2-PCIe-2280-2260-2242/dp/B00MYCQP38/

Your motherboard says it's a full 32Mbps both ways and maybe that's true, but I thought I'd mention the adapter because it worked for me (I got about double the speed of plugging into the on-board M.2 slot). I think it was $25 and if you've spent enough time fiddling already, this might be worth a try.

I wrote about my experience in my Amazon review: https://www.amazon.com/gp/customer-reviews/R21BXILGXW4D9C/ref=cm_cr_arp_d_rvw_ttl?ie=UTF8&ASIN=B01639694M

protected by Community Apr 21 '16 at 17:18

Thank you for your interest in this question. Because it has attracted low-quality or spam answers that had to be removed, posting an answer now requires 10 reputation on this site (the association bonus does not count).

Would you like to answer one of these unanswered questions instead?

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.