Understanding Disk I/O Performance: Interpreting iostat Metrics for the 'sdb' Drive

 

Understanding Disk I/O Performance: Interpreting iostat Metrics for the 'sdb' Drive

Abstract

This report provides a detailed interpretation of iostat command output, specifically focusing on the performance metrics for the sdb drive, which is identified as the primary work drive for our ETL processes. iostat is a vital Linux utility for monitoring system input/output device loading. By dissecting key columns such as requests per second, data transfer rates, average wait times, and utilization percentage, we can gain critical insights into the drive's current workload, potential bottlenecks, and overall health. This analysis is crucial for optimizing ETL pipeline performance, especially when dealing with large data transfers and concurrent operations.

1. Introduction: The Role of iostat in ETL Performance Monitoring

Efficient ETL (Extract, Transform, Load) operations are heavily reliant on the performance of the underlying storage system. Disk I/O can often become a significant bottleneck, particularly when processing large volumes of data from CSV files and persisting them into a relational database. The iostat command, part of the sysstat package on Linux, provides comprehensive statistics on CPU utilization and I/O activity for block devices. Interpreting its output allows administrators and developers to diagnose performance issues, understand workload patterns, and make informed decisions about resource allocation.

This report will analyze a specific iostat output snippet for the sdb drive, translating the technical metrics into actionable insights relevant to our ETL pipeline's performance.

2. iostat Output for sdb Drive

The provided iostat output for the sdb drive is as follows:

Device            r/s     rkB/s   rrqm/s  %rrqm r_await rareq-sz     w/s     wkB/s   wrqm/s  %wrqm w_await wareq-sz     d/s     dkB/s   drqm/s  %drqm d_await dareq-sz     f/s f_await  aqu-sz  %util
sdb              4,68    775,20     0,13   2,64  200,36   165,54    0,00      0,00     0,00   0,00    0,00     0,00    0,00      0,00     0,00   0,00    0,00     0,00    0,00    0,00    0,94   2,13

3. Interpreting Key iostat Metrics for sdb

Let's break down the meaning of each relevant column for the sdb drive:

• Device: sdb

  • This is the name of the block device being monitored. sdb is identified as our work drive.

• r/s (reads per second): 4,68

  • Meaning: The number of read requests issued to the device per second.

  • Insight for sdb: The drive is performing approximately 4.68 read operations per second. This is a relatively low number, suggesting that either the read workload is light, or the reads are very large.

• rkB/s (kilobytes read per second): 775,20

  • Meaning: The amount of data read from the device per second, in kilobytes.

  • Insight for sdb: The drive is reading data at a rate of 775.20 KB/s (or approximately 0.76 MB/s). This, combined with a low r/s, indicates that the individual read requests are quite large on average (775.20 KB/s / 4.68 r/s 165.64 KB per read request, which matches rareq-sz). This is typical for sequential reads, like reading large CSV files.

• rrqm/s (read requests merged per second): 0,13

  • Meaning: The number of read requests merged into larger requests by the I/O scheduler before being sent to the device. Merging can improve efficiency.

  • Insight for sdb: A very low number, indicating minimal merging of read requests.

• %rrqm (percentage of read requests merged): 2,64

  • Meaning: The percentage of read requests that were merged.

  • Insight for sdb: Only 2.64% of read requests are being merged, which is low.

• r_await (average read await time): 200,36

  • Meaning: The average time (in milliseconds) that read requests waited in the queue and the time spent servicing them. This is a crucial latency metric.

  • Insight for sdb: An average r_await of 200.36 ms is very high. This indicates significant latency for read operations. A high r_await suggests that read requests are spending a long time waiting for the disk to become available or for the data to be retrieved. This could be due to:

    • The disk being busy with other operations (though %util is low for sdb).

    • The disk itself being slow (e.g., a traditional HDD under load, or a slow network-attached storage).

    • A large queue of pending requests.

• rareq-sz (average read request size): 165,54

  • Meaning: The average size (in kilobytes) of read requests issued to the device.

  • Insight for sdb: Average read request size is 165.54 KB. This confirms that reads are not small, random reads, but rather larger, potentially sequential chunks, which is consistent with reading CSV files.

• w/s (writes per second): 0,00

  • Meaning: The number of write requests issued to the device per second.

  • Insight for sdb: Zero write requests. This indicates that at the moment this snapshot was taken, the sdb drive was not performing any write operations. This is important for our ETL, as it means the ETL's write phase was either not active or was directed to a different drive.

• wkB/s (kilobytes written per second): 0,00

  • Meaning: The amount of data written to the device per second, in kilobytes.

  • Insight for sdb: Zero data written, consistent with w/s.

• wrqm/s, %wrqm, w_await, wareq-sz: All are 0,00 for sdb, confirming no write activity.

• d/s, dkB/s, drqm/s, %drqm, d_await, dareq-sz: These columns relate to discard operations (TRIM/UNMAP) for SSDs. All are 0,00 for sdb, indicating no discard activity.

• f/s (fsyncs per second): 0,00

  • Meaning: The number of fsync() calls per second, which force pending writes to disk. Important for database transaction durability.

  • Insight for sdb: Zero fsync() calls, consistent with no write activity.

• f_await (fsync await time): 0,00

  • Meaning: The average time (in milliseconds) that fsync() requests waited in the queue and the time spent servicing them.

• aqu-sz (average queue size): 0,94

  • Meaning: The average number of requests waiting in the device's I/O queue.

  • Insight for sdb: An average queue size of 0.94 requests. This means, on average, there's almost one request waiting. While not extremely high, combined with the high r_await, it suggests that the requests are waiting for a significant duration even if the queue isn't very long. This points to the device itself being slow to service requests.

• %util (percentage of CPU time during which I/O requests were issued to the device): 2,13

  • Meaning: The percentage of time the device was busy servicing requests. A value close to 100% indicates a potential I/O bottleneck.

  • Insight for sdb: Only 2.13% utilization. This is the most puzzling metric. A very low %util with a very high r_await is contradictory if the disk is the sole bottleneck. It suggests that the device itself might not be fully saturated, but requests are still taking a long time. This could imply:

    • Intermittent high latency: The average is skewed by a few very slow reads.

    • Other system bottlenecks: Something else (CPU, memory, kernel I/O scheduler issues) is preventing the I/O operations from completing quickly, even if the disk isn't 100% busy.

    • VM/Cloud I/O Limits: If this is a virtual machine or cloud instance, the underlying hypervisor or cloud provider might be imposing I/O limits that manifest as high latency without showing high %util at the guest OS level.

    • Spurious Reads: If the reads are very few but very slow, %util might remain low.

4. Conclusion and Implications for ETL

The iostat output for sdb reveals a drive that, at the time of the snapshot, was primarily engaged in read operations (775.20 KB/s), likely sequential reads of large CSV files. Crucially, these read operations are experiencing very high latency (r_await of 200.36 ms), despite the drive's low overall utilization (%util of 2.13%). There is no significant write activity observed.

Key Takeaways for ETL:

• Read Bottleneck Potential: The high r_await is a significant concern. If your ETL process involves reading large CSV files from sdb, this latency will directly impact the "Extract" phase, slowing down the overall pipeline.

• Investigate High Latency: The combination of high r_await and low %util warrants further investigation.

  • Is sdb a slow drive? (e.g., a spinning HDD vs. SSD, or a slow network share).

  • Are there other processes competing for I/O on sdb? (though %util suggests not heavily).

  • Is this a VM/Cloud environment? Check for I/O limits imposed by the provider.

  • Is the I/O scheduler configured optimally? (e.g., noop, deadline, cfq).

• Write Performance Unknown: Since no write activity was observed, iostat provides no insight into the write performance of sdb. If the "Load" phase of your ETL targets sdb, you would need to run iostat during an active write workload to assess its write capabilities.

• Impact on Parallel ETL: If multiple ETL threads are concurrently reading from sdb, this high read latency will be exacerbated, potentially leading to threads waiting extensively for disk I/O, negating the benefits of parallelization.

In summary, while sdb isn't showing signs of being fully saturated, the high read latency is a red flag for the "Extract" phase of your ETL. Further investigation into the nature of sdb and its environment is recommended to understand and mitigate this performance characteristic.

5. Drive and Filesystem Specific Analysis: Toshiba MQ04ABF100 on NTFS3

The sdb drive has been identified as a Toshiba MQ04ABF100 1TB HDD, mounted with the NTFS3 filesystem. Let's compare its expected performance characteristics with the iostat observations and consider the impact of NTFS3 on Linux.

5.1. Toshiba MQ04ABF100 Expected Performance

Based on manufacturer specifications and common benchmarks (e.g., PassMark, Toshiba product manuals):

• Type: 2.5-inch Hard Disk Drive (HDD)

• Rotation Speed: 5,400 RPM

• Interface: SATA III (6.0 Gbit/s theoretical maximum)

• Buffer Size: 128 MB

• Typical Sequential Read/Write: Benchmarks indicate sequential read speeds in the range of ~80-170 MB/s and sequential write speeds of ~80-120 MB/s. Some sources even quote "media transfer rates of up to 801 megabytes per second" (Source 1.6), which is likely an internal buffer speed or theoretical burst, not sustained disk performance. A more realistic sustained sequential read for a 5400 RPM 2.5-inch HDD is around 80-100 MB/s.

5.2. NTFS3 Filesystem Performance on Linux

The NTFS3 kernel driver is a relatively newer, in-kernel driver for NTFS on Linux, introduced to improve upon the older FUSE-based ntfs-3g driver. While it offers better performance than ntfs-3g in many scenarios, especially for SSDs, there are important considerations for HDDs and overall stability:

• Performance vs. Native Linux Filesystems (ext4, XFS): NTFS on Linux (even with NTFS3) is generally slower than native Linux filesystems like ext4 or XFS, especially for mixed workloads or when dealing with many small files (Source 2.1, 2.2, 2.7). Native Linux drivers are optimized for Linux kernel operations, whereas NTFS support is still a reverse-engineered effort.

• Write Performance Concerns: Some reports suggest that while NTFS3 can offer decent read speeds, its write performance, particularly on HDDs, might still be suboptimal compared to native filesystems, and there have been anecdotal reports of stability/corruption issues during intensive write operations (Source 3.1, 3.2, 3.5, 3.6).

• Dirty Bit Handling: NTFS3 can be particular about the "dirty bit" set by Windows, refusing to mount partitions cleanly if Windows Fast Boot was used without proper shutdown (Source 3.4, 3.6).

• Use Case: NTFS is primarily optimized for Windows workflows. Its use on Linux is typically for dual-booting scenarios or sharing data with Windows systems. For Linux-exclusive storage, native filesystems are strongly recommended for performance and reliability (Source 2.1, 2.6).

5.3. Comparison with iostat Results

Let's reconcile the iostat output with the drive and filesystem characteristics:

• Observed Read Throughput (rkB/s): 775,20 KB/s (0.76 MB/s).

  • Comparison: This observed read throughput is significantly lower than the expected sequential read speeds of a Toshiba MQ04ABF100 HDD (which are typically in the range of 80-170 MB/s). Even considering it's a 5400 RPM drive, 0.76 MB/s is extremely slow.

• Observed Read Latency (r_await): 200,36 ms.

  • Comparison: This is an extremely high latency for read operations, reinforcing the idea of a severe bottleneck.

• Observed Utilization (%util): 2,13%.

  • Comparison: This remains the most puzzling aspect. A very low utilization while experiencing such high latency is highly unusual for a disk-bound issue.

5.4. Hypothesis: The NTFS3 Filesystem as a Bottleneck

Given the discrepancy between the drive's theoretical capabilities and the observed iostat performance, combined with the known characteristics of NTFS3 on Linux, the NTFS3 filesystem is a very strong candidate for being a significant bottleneck in your ETL's "Extract" phase.

Here's why:

• Driver Overhead: Even the in-kernel NTFS3 driver, while better than ntfs-3g, still involves translation layers and might not be as optimized for Linux I/O patterns as native file systems. This overhead can manifest as increased latency.

• I/O Scheduler Interaction: The way NTFS3 interacts with the Linux kernel's I/O scheduler might not be optimal, leading to requests waiting longer than expected.

• Internal Fragmentation/Structure: While ext4 is designed to minimize fragmentation, NTFS can be more prone to it, which might affect performance, especially on HDDs, though the rareq-sz suggests large sequential reads which are less affected by fragmentation.

• "Low %util" Anomaly Revisited: The low %util with high r_await could be explained if the bottleneck isn't the disk hardware itself being busy, but rather the filesystem driver or kernel I/O stack taking a long time to process each request before it even hits the disk effectively, or after the disk returns data but before it's delivered to the application. This "processing time" on the Linux side would contribute to r_await but not necessarily to %util if the disk is idle during that processing.

6. Recommendations and Further Investigation

The current iostat output strongly suggests that the sdb drive, when accessed via NTFS3 on Linux, is performing far below its expected capabilities, primarily due to high read latency.

Immediate Recommendations:

1. Verify Workload: Confirm that the iostat snapshot was taken during an active ETL "Extract" phase from sdb. The low r/s might indicate a very sparse read pattern, but the high r_await is still concerning.

2. Benchmark with Native Filesystem: If possible, perform a small-scale test:

   • Format a small partition on sdb (or another test drive) with a native Linux filesystem (e.g., ext4 or XFS).

   • Copy a representative CSV file to this ext4/XFS partition.

   • Run your ETL "Extract" process using this file.

   • Run iostat -dkx 1 2 on sdb during this test.

   • Compare the rkB/s, r_await, and %util values with the NTFS3 results. This will definitively show the performance difference attributable to the filesystem.

3. Check Kernel Logs: Use dmesg | grep ntfs3 to check for any errors or warnings related to the ntfs3 driver in the kernel logs, which might indicate stability issues or problems with the mount.

4. Consider big_writes Mount Option: For NTFS3, the big_writes mount option can sometimes improve performance for large file operations by allowing larger write requests. You can try remounting with sudo mount -o remount,big_writes /mnt/wwn-part2. However, be cautious with this option, as it's sometimes not recommended for general use or smaller files.

5. Reconsider Filesystem Choice: For a dedicated ETL work drive on Linux, migrating to a native Linux filesystem (ext4, XFS, Btrfs) is highly recommended for optimal performance, stability, and full feature support. If Windows compatibility is not strictly required for this specific drive, this would be the most robust long-term solution.

By performing these investigations, you can confirm the exact nature of the bottleneck and implement the most effective solution to significantly improve your ETL pipeline's "Extract" phase performance.

7. Impact of USB Connection and Identifying USB 3.0 Ports

The fact that the sdb drive is mounted via a USB port is a critical piece of information that significantly impacts its observed performance and explains several of the puzzling iostat metrics.

7.1. How USB Connection Affects Performance

1. Interface Overhead and Speed Limits:

   • USB protocols inherently introduce more overhead and latency compared to direct internal SATA connections. Each I/O request must traverse the USB controller, be translated, and then sent to the drive.

   • USB Version is Key: The actual speed is capped by the lowest common denominator between the USB port on your computer and the USB enclosure/adapter for the drive.

     • USB 2.0: Theoretical maximum of 480 Mbps (60 MB/s). Real-world sustained speeds are typically 20-40 MB/s. This would be a severe bottleneck for any modern HDD.

     • USB 3.0 (USB 3.2 Gen 1): Theoretical maximum of 5 Gbps (625 MB/s). Real-world sustained speeds can be 80-200 MB/s or more. For a 5400 RPM HDD, USB 3.0 might still add some overhead but is less likely to be the sole limiting factor compared to USB 2.0.

     • USB 3.1/3.2 Gen 2: Theoretical maximum of 10 Gbps (1250 MB/s).

2. Increased Latency (r_await):

   • The additional layers of abstraction and protocol translation introduced by the USB stack directly contribute to higher latency. Your observed r_await of 200.36 ms is extremely high and highly consistent with a drive connected via a slower or problematic USB interface.

3. Explaining the "Low %util" Anomaly:

   • The low %util (2.13%) combined with high r_await is now more understandable. %util primarily reflects how busy the drive hardware itself is. If the bottleneck lies within the USB bus or controller, the drive might be idle for periods while the USB stack processes data or waits for bus availability. Requests are delayed before they effectively reach the disk or after the disk returns data but before it's fully transferred back to the host system. This delay inflates r_await without necessarily saturating the drive's internal mechanisms.

4. Compounded Issues with NTFS3:

   • The inherent overhead and non-native optimization of NTFS3 on Linux are further exacerbated by the USB layer. You are adding multiple layers of potential inefficiency, each contributing to the overall performance degradation.

7.2. Using lsusb to Determine USB Port Version

The lsusb command is a Linux utility that lists USB devices connected to your system and provides information about the USB controllers and the speed capabilities of the devices.

• Command:

  lsusb -t
  
  

  • The -t option displays the USB devices in a tree-like format, showing the hierarchy of hubs and devices, along with their reported speeds.

• Interpreting Output: Look for speed indicators in the output:

  • 480M: Indicates USB 2.0 (High-speed)

  • 5000M: Indicates USB 3.0 (SuperSpeed)

  • 10000M: Indicates USB 3.1 Gen 2 (SuperSpeed+)

  • 20000M: Indicates USB 3.2 Gen 2x2 (SuperSpeed+)

  Example lsusb -t output:

  /:  Bus 02.Port 1: Dev 1, Class=root_hub, Driver=xhci_hcd/6p, 5000M
      |__ Port 2: Dev 2, If 0, Class=Mass Storage, Driver=usb-storage, 5000M
  /:  Bus 01.Port 1: Dev 1, Class=root_hub, Driver=ehci-pci/15p, 480M
      |__ Port 3: Dev 3, If 0, Class=Mass Storage, Driver=usb-storage, 480M
  
  

  In this example:

  • Bus 02 is a USB 3.0 (5000M) root hub, and a Mass Storage device (your external drive) is connected to Port 2 at USB 3.0 speed.

  • Bus 01 is a USB 2.0 (480M) root hub, and another Mass Storage device is connected to Port 3 at USB 2.0 speed.

  By running lsusb -t, you can determine if your sdb drive is connected to a USB 3.0 (or higher) port and if it's actually negotiating a SuperSpeed connection. If it shows 480M, then the USB 2.0 interface is almost certainly your primary bottleneck.

8. Updated Recommendations and Conclusion

The USB connection is a crucial factor explaining the observed poor performance of sdb. The combination of a 5400 RPM HDD, NTFS3 on Linux, and potentially a slower USB interface creates a multi-layered bottleneck.

Updated Recommendations:

1. Verify USB Version: Use lsusb -t to confirm the actual negotiated speed of the USB connection for sdb. If it's USB 2.0 (480M), this is the most significant bottleneck.

2. Prioritize Native SATA: For optimal ETL performance, the strongest recommendation remains to connect the drive directly via an internal SATA port if available. This eliminates all USB overhead.

3. Upgrade USB Interface (if SATA not possible): If direct SATA is not an option, ensure both the USB port on your computer and the external drive enclosure/adapter are USB 3.0 (or higher) compatible and that the connection is negotiating at SuperSpeed (5000M or higher).

4. Re-evaluate Filesystem (even with faster USB): Even with a faster USB connection, the performance characteristics and potential stability issues of NTFS3 on Linux remain a concern for a dedicated ETL drive. Benchmarking with ext4 on a USB-connected drive would still be valuable to isolate the filesystem's impact.

5. Consider SSD over HDD: For ETL workloads involving frequent I/O, upgrading to an external SSD with a USB 3.0/3.1/3.2 interface would provide a massive performance boost, even over USB, compared to a 5400 RPM HDD.

By addressing the USB connectivity and potentially the filesystem, you can significantly improve the "Extract" phase performance of your ETL pipeline.

References

[1] man iostat (Linux manual page for iostat command). [2] "Linux Disk I/O Monitoring with iostat." Linux Journal. Available: https://www.linuxjournal.com/content/linux-disk-io-monitoring-iostat (Accessed: July 18, 2025). [3] "Understanding iostat output." Red Hat Customer Portal. Available: https://access.redhat.com/solutions/112643 (Accessed: July 18, 2025). [4] Toshiba. (n.d.). MQ04AB Series Client HDD Product Manual. Available: https://toshiba.semicon-storage.com/content/dam/toshiba-ss-v3/master/en/storage/product/internal-specialty/cHDD-MQ04AB_Product-Manual.pdf (Accessed: July 18, 2025). [5] PassMark Software. (n.d.). TOSHIBA MQ04ABF100 - Price performance comparison - Hard Drive Benchmarks. Available: https://www.harddrivebenchmark.net/hdd.php?hdd=TOSHIBA%20MQ04ABF100&id=14844 (Accessed: July 18, 2025). [6] DEV Community. (2025). NTFS vs EXT4 - Choosing the Right File System for Your Workflow. Available: https://dev.to/xploitcore/ntfs-vs-ext4-choosing-the-right-file-system-for-your-workflow-59i5 (Accessed: July 18, 2025). [7] Super User. (2019). How bad is performance for accessing NTFS ssd disk from linux?. Available: https://superuser.com/questions/1400495/how-bad-is-perfomance-for-accessing-ntfs-ssd-disk-from-linux (Accessed: July 18, 2025). [8] Heiko's Blog. (n.d.). Does the Linux NTFS3 Driver Corrupt Directories?. Available: https://www.heiko-sieger.info/does-the-linux-ntfs3-driver-corrupt-directories/ (Accessed: July 18, 2025). [9] Reddit. (2025). The ntfs3 driver made my switch from windows SEAMLESS, why is nobody talking about it?. Available: https://www.reddit.com/r/linux_gaming/comments/1kig7it/the_ntfs3_driver_made_my_switch_from_windows/ (Accessed: July 18, 2025). [10] man lsusb (Linux manual page for lsusb command).