From: Chris Snook <csnook@redhat.com>
To: Emmanuel Florac <eflorac@intellique.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: RAID-1 performance under 2.4 and 2.6
Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2008 18:00:24 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <47E975F8.3000702@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20080325194306.4ac71ff2@galadriel.home>
Emmanuel Florac wrote:
> I post there because I couldn't find any information about this
> elsewhere : on the same hardware ( Athlon X2 3500+, 512MB RAM, 2x400 GB
> Hitachi SATA2 hard drives ) the 2.4 Linux software RAID-1 (tested 2.4.32
> and 2.4.36.2, slightly patched to recognize the hardware :p) is way
> faster than 2.6 ( tested 2.6.17.13, 2.6.18.8, 2.6.22.16, 2.6.24.3)
> especially for writes. I actually made the test on several different
> machines (same hard drives though) and it remained consistent across
> the board, with /mountpoint a software RAID-1.
> Actually checking disk activity with iostat or vmstat shows clearly a
> cache effect much more pronounced on 2.4 (i.e. writing goes on much
> longer in the background) but it doesn't really account for the
> difference. I've also tested it thru NFS from another machine (Giga
> ethernet network):
>
> dd if=/dev/zero of=/mountpoint/testfile bs=1M count=1024
>
> kernel 2.4 2.6 2.4 thru NFS 2.6 thru NFS
>
> write 90 MB/s 65 MB/s 70 MB/s 45 MB/s
> read 90 MB/s 80 MB/s 75 MB/s 65 MB/s
>
> Duh. That's terrible. Does it mean I should stick to (heavily
> patched...) 2.4 for my file servers or... ? :)
>
It means you shouldn't use dd as a benchmark.
-- Chris
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2008-03-25 22:00 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 25+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2008-03-25 18:43 RAID-1 performance under 2.4 and 2.6 Emmanuel Florac
2008-03-25 22:00 ` Chris Snook [this message]
2008-03-25 22:09 ` Emmanuel Florac
2008-03-25 22:47 ` Bill Davidsen
2008-03-25 23:13 ` Chris Snook
2008-03-25 23:42 ` Bill Davidsen
2008-03-26 8:05 ` Emmanuel Florac
2008-03-26 8:25 ` "J.A. Magallón"
2008-03-27 21:49 ` Bill Davidsen
2008-03-26 16:51 ` Chris Snook
2008-03-26 16:39 ` Chris Snook
2008-07-16 14:52 ` Pádraig Brady
2008-07-16 18:18 ` Chris Snook
2008-03-26 7:15 ` Bart Van Assche
2008-03-26 7:56 ` Emmanuel Florac
2008-03-27 21:53 ` Bill Davidsen
2008-03-28 7:44 ` Bart Van Assche
2008-03-28 12:04 ` Bill Davidsen
2008-03-25 22:37 ` Bill Davidsen
2008-03-26 8:42 ` Bart Van Assche
2008-03-26 11:07 ` Emmanuel Florac
2008-03-26 11:15 ` Bart Van Assche
2008-03-26 12:36 ` Emmanuel Florac
2008-03-26 13:22 ` Bart Van Assche
2008-03-27 22:03 ` Bill Davidsen
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=47E975F8.3000702@redhat.com \
--to=csnook@redhat.com \
--cc=eflorac@intellique.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@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.