All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Hans Kristian Rosbach <hk@isphuset.no>
To: Gordon Henderson <gordon@drogon.net>
Cc: linux-raid@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: RAID1 & 2.6.9 performance problem
Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2005 16:51:21 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <1105977081.15184.12.camel@linux.local> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.56.0501171528010.21510@lion.drogon.net>

> As I understand it, it reads "chunksize" blocks from one drive, then
> switches to the other drive, then back again.
>
> Try a bigger read - eg:
> 
>   time dd if=/dev/md6 of=/dev/null bs=128K count=8192
> 
> but I don't think there are any real gains to be made with RAID-1 - your
> results more or less track everything I've seen and used with RAID-1 - ie.
> disk read speed is the same as reading from a single device, and never
> significantly faster.

Actually I have managed to get about 30-40% higher throughput with just
a little hacking on the code that selects what disk to use.

Problem is
-It selects the disk that is closest to the wanted sector by remembering
 what sector was last requested and what disk was used for it.
-For sequential reads (sucha as hdparm) it will override and use the
 same disk anyways. (sector = lastsector+1)

I gained a lot of throughput by alternating disk, but seek time was
roughly doubled. I also tried to get smart and played some with the
code in order to avoid seeking both disks back and forth wildly when
there were two sequential reads. I didn't find a good way to do it
unfortunately.

I'm not going to make any patch available, because I removed bad-disk
checking in order to simplify it.

-HK


  reply	other threads:[~2005-01-17 15:51 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 21+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2005-01-17 15:22 RAID1 & 2.6.9 performance problem Janusz Zamecki
2005-01-17 15:39 ` Gordon Henderson
2005-01-17 15:51   ` Hans Kristian Rosbach [this message]
2005-01-17 16:46     ` Peter T. Breuer
2005-01-18 13:18       ` Hans Kristian Rosbach
2005-01-18 13:43         ` Peter T. Breuer
2005-01-17 20:49     ` Janusz Zamecki
2005-01-17 16:24   ` Andrew Walrond
2005-01-17 16:51     ` Is this hdparm -t output correct? (was Re: RAID1 & 2.6.9 performance problem) Andy Smith
2005-01-17 17:04       ` Andrew Walrond
2005-01-17 18:26         ` RAID1 Corruption Markus Gehring
2005-01-17 19:14           ` Paul Clements
2005-01-17 19:35             ` Tony Mantler
2005-01-17 19:42             ` Markus Gehring
2005-01-17 19:21           ` Sven Anders
2005-01-18 17:32 ` RAID1 & 2.6.9 performance problem J. Ryan Earl
2005-01-18 17:34   ` J. Ryan Earl
2005-01-18 18:41     ` Janusz Zamecki
2005-01-18 19:18       ` J. Ryan Earl
2005-01-18 19:34         ` Janusz Zamecki
2005-01-18 19:12   ` Janusz Zamecki

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=1105977081.15184.12.camel@linux.local \
    --to=hk@isphuset.no \
    --cc=gordon@drogon.net \
    --cc=linux-raid@vger.kernel.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.