All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Steven Ihde <x-linux-raid@hamachi.dyndns.org>
To: Mark Hahn <hahn@physics.mcmaster.ca>
Cc: Guy <bugzilla@watkins-home.com>, linux-raid@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Looking for the cause of poor I/O performance
Date: Sat, 4 Dec 2004 17:00:08 -0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20041205010008.GA8091@hamachi.dyndns.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0412041809530.21262-100000@coffee.psychology.mcmaster.ca>


Well while we're on the subject ;-)

I have a three-disk raid5 array.  In summary, the raid5 performs
slightly worse than any of the three disks alone.  Memory bandwidth
tested by hdparm seems more than adequate (1.6GB/sec).  Shouldn't
read-balancing give me some benefit here?  Kernel is 2.6.8.

The system is an i865PE (I think) chipset with a 2.4GHz P4.  I believe
the memory bandwidth is more than adequate and that the disks are
performing up to spec when tested alone (Seagate Barracudas, hda & hdc
are 80GB PATA, sda is 120GB SATA):

/dev/hda:
 Timing cached reads:   3356 MB in  2.00 seconds = 1676.58 MB/sec
 Timing buffered disk reads:  122 MB in  3.03 seconds =  40.24 MB/sec
/dev/hdc:
 Timing cached reads:   3316 MB in  2.00 seconds = 1657.42 MB/sec
 Timing buffered disk reads:  122 MB in  3.02 seconds =  40.34 MB/sec
/dev/sda:
 Timing cached reads:   3344 MB in  2.00 seconds = 1673.09 MB/sec
 Timing buffered disk reads:  122 MB in  3.04 seconds =  40.19 MB/sec

Now, the raid5 array:

/dev/md1:
 Timing cached reads:   3408 MB in  2.00 seconds = 1704.26 MB/sec
 Timing buffered disk reads:  114 MB in  3.01 seconds =  37.83 MB/sec

Slightly worse!  Bonnie++ gives me an even lower number, about 30.9
MB/sec for sequential input from the raid5.

hda and hdc are attached to the on-board PATA interfaces (one per
channel, no slaves on either channel).  sda is attached to the
on-board SATA interface (the other on-board SATA is empty).  

A possible clue is that when tested individually but in parallel, hda
and hdc both halve their bandwidth:

/dev/hda:
 Timing cached reads:   1552 MB in  2.00 seconds = 774.57 MB/sec
 Timing buffered disk reads:   68 MB in  3.07 seconds =  22.15 MB/sec
/dev/hdc:
 Timing cached reads:   784 MB in  2.00 seconds = 391.86 MB/sec
 Timing buffered disk reads:   68 MB in  3.02 seconds =  22.54 MB/sec
/dev/sda:
 Timing cached reads:   836 MB in  2.00 seconds = 417.65 MB/sec
 Timing buffered disk reads:  120 MB in  3.00 seconds =  39.94 MB/sec

Could there be contention for some shared resource in the on-board
PATA chipset between hda and hdc?  Would moving one of them to a
separate IDE controller on a PCI card help?

Am I unreasonable to think that I should be getting better than 37
MB/sec on raid5 read performance, given that each disk alone seems
capable of 40 MB/sec?

Thanks,

Steve


  reply	other threads:[~2004-12-05  1:00 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 41+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2004-12-02 16:38 Looking for the cause of poor I/O performance TJ
2004-12-03  0:49 ` Mark Hahn
2004-12-03  3:54   ` Guy
2004-12-03  6:33     ` TJ
2004-12-03  7:38       ` Guy
2004-12-04 15:23     ` TJ
2004-12-04 17:59       ` Guy
2004-12-04 23:51         ` Mark Hahn
2004-12-05  1:00           ` Steven Ihde [this message]
2004-12-06 17:48             ` Steven Ihde
2004-12-06 19:29               ` Guy
2004-12-06 21:10                 ` David Greaves
2004-12-06 23:02                   ` Guy
2004-12-08  9:24                     ` David Greaves
2004-12-08 18:31                       ` Guy
2004-12-08 22:00                         ` Steven Ihde
2004-12-08 22:25                           ` Guy
2004-12-08 22:41                             ` Guy
2004-12-09  1:40                               ` Steven Ihde
2004-12-12  8:56                               ` [linux-lvm] Re: Looking for the cause of poor I/O performance - a test script David Greaves
2004-12-12  8:56                                 ` David Greaves
2004-12-28  0:13                                 ` [linux-lvm] " Steven Ihde
2004-12-28  0:13                                   ` Steven Ihde
2004-12-06 21:16                 ` Looking for the cause of poor I/O performance Steven Ihde
2004-12-06 21:42                   ` documentation of /sys/vm/max-readahead Morten Sylvest Olsen
2004-12-05  2:16           ` Looking for the cause of poor I/O performance Guy
2004-12-05 15:14             ` TJ
2004-12-06 21:39               ` Mark Hahn
2004-12-05 15:17           ` TJ
2004-12-06 21:34             ` Mark Hahn
2004-12-06 23:06               ` Guy
2004-12-03  6:51   ` TJ
2004-12-03 20:03   ` TJ
2004-12-04 22:59     ` Mark Hahn
2004-12-03  7:12 ` TJ
  -- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2004-12-03 11:30 TJ
2004-12-03 11:46 ` Erik Mouw
2004-12-03 15:09   ` TJ
2004-12-03 16:25     ` Erik Mouw
2004-12-03 16:32   ` David Greaves
2004-12-03 16:50     ` Guy

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=20041205010008.GA8091@hamachi.dyndns.org \
    --to=x-linux-raid@hamachi.dyndns.org \
    --cc=bugzilla@watkins-home.com \
    --cc=hahn@physics.mcmaster.ca \
    --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.