All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Jan Kasprzak <kas@fi.muni.cz>
To: John Robinson <john.robinson@anonymous.org.uk>
Cc: linux-raid@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: RAID-10 initial sync is CPU-limited
Date: Tue, 4 Jan 2011 17:41:23 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20110104164123.GT17455@fi.muni.cz> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4D2334A4.4040109@anonymous.org.uk>

John Robinson wrote:
: On 03/01/2011 16:32, Jan Kasprzak wrote:
: [...]
: >	My hardware is apparently able to keep all the disks busy most
: >of the time (verified by running dd if=/dev/sd$i bs=1M of=/dev/null
: >in parallel - iostat reports 99-100 % utilization of each disk and about
: >55 MB/s read per disk). All the disks are connected by a four-lane
: >SAS controller, so the maximum theoretical throughput is 4x 3 Gbit/s
: >= 12 Gbit/s = 0.5 Gbit/s per disk = 62.5 MByte/s per disk).
: 
: This is part of your limit.

	Yes, I am aware of this. A single disk is able to do about
147 MB/s according to hdparm -t. However (a big "however"),
my usage pattern rarely issues big/sequential requests, and for more
random load the total throughput generated by all disks will be
much lower and the disks themselves become the bottleneck.

	I have just been suriprised that for initial RAID-10 resync
the bottleneck is in the (single) CPU.

: but because you're throttled by the PCIe x4 interface, you're only 
: getting about half of what your discs could do.

	I have not talked about PCIe x4, but SAS 4-way multichannel.
Anyway, my SAS controller is connected by PCIe 2.0 x8, which equals
to (if I read Wikipedia correctly :-) 32 Gbit/s, i.e. 2 GByte/s.
So PCIe is not a bottleneck here. SAS is, and I am aware of that.

-Yenya

-- 
| Jan "Yenya" Kasprzak  <kas at {fi.muni.cz - work | yenya.net - private}> |
| GPG: ID 1024/D3498839      Fingerprint 0D99A7FB206605D7 8B35FCDE05B18A5E |
| http://www.fi.muni.cz/~kas/    Journal: http://www.fi.muni.cz/~kas/blog/ |
Please don't top post and in particular don't attach entire digests to your
mail or we'll all soon be using bittorrent to read the list.     --Alan Cox

  reply	other threads:[~2011-01-04 16:41 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2011-01-03 16:32 RAID-10 initial sync is CPU-limited Jan Kasprzak
2011-01-04  5:24 ` NeilBrown
2011-01-04  8:29   ` Jan Kasprzak
2011-01-04 11:15     ` NeilBrown
2011-01-04 14:47     ` John Robinson
2011-01-04 17:13       ` Jan Kasprzak
2011-01-04 14:54 ` John Robinson
2011-01-04 16:41   ` Jan Kasprzak [this message]
2011-01-04 17:05     ` John Robinson
2011-01-04 17:17       ` Jan Kasprzak

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=20110104164123.GT17455@fi.muni.cz \
    --to=kas@fi.muni.cz \
    --cc=john.robinson@anonymous.org.uk \
    --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.