All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: John Robinson <john.robinson@anonymous.org.uk>
To: Johannes Segitz <johannes.segitz@gmail.com>
Cc: linux-raid@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Performance of a software raid 5
Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2009 00:46:54 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <49ED096E.1000002@anonymous.org.uk> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <a5cd9eed0904201012o67503049laa50f4cb5b8d88de@mail.gmail.com>

On 20/04/2009 18:12, Johannes Segitz wrote:
> i'm currently trying to create a raid 5 out of three 1 TB hdd. For now
> there is one hdd missing so i get 3 TB of usable space.
[...]
> Stride and stripe-width will be correct when i add another two hdd of
> which one will carry data. Can someone please give me a hint why i
> could get such bad performance especially while reading?

I would have thought it's because you're running in degraded mode and 
one in 3 sectors is having to be regenerated from the parity. It still 
seems a bit slow, though.

Here I have a 3-disc RAID-5 of similar drives:

# hdparm -i /dev/sda
/dev/sda:

  Model=SAMSUNG HD103UJ                         , FwRev=1AA01112, 
SerialNo=S1PVJ1CQ602164
  Config={ Fixed }
  RawCHS=16383/16/63, TrkSize=34902, SectSize=554, ECCbytes=4
  BuffType=DualPortCache, BuffSize=32767kB, MaxMultSect=16, MultSect=?0?
  CurCHS=16383/16/63, CurSects=16514064, LBA=yes, LBAsects=268435455
  IORDY=on/off, tPIO={min:120,w/IORDY:120}, tDMA={min:120,rec:120}
  PIO modes:  pio0 pio1 pio2 pio3 pio4
  DMA modes:  mdma0 mdma1 mdma2
  UDMA modes: udma0 udma1 udma2
  AdvancedPM=yes: disabled (255) WriteCache=enabled
  Drive conforms to: unknown:  ATA/ATAPI-3 ATA/ATAPI-4 ATA/ATAPI-5 
ATA/ATAPI-6 ATA/ATAPI-7

# mdadm --detail /dev/md1
/dev/md1:
         Version : 00.90.03
   Creation Time : Mon Jul 28 15:49:09 2008
      Raid Level : raid5
      Array Size : 1953310720 (1862.82 GiB 2000.19 GB)
   Used Dev Size : 976655360 (931.41 GiB 1000.10 GB)
    Raid Devices : 3
   Total Devices : 3
Preferred Minor : 1
     Persistence : Superblock is persistent

   Intent Bitmap : Internal

     Update Time : Tue Apr 21 00:35:26 2009
           State : active
  Active Devices : 3
Working Devices : 3
  Failed Devices : 0
   Spare Devices : 0

          Layout : left-symmetric
      Chunk Size : 256K

            UUID : d8c57a89:166ee722:23adec48:1574b5fc
          Events : 0.6134

     Number   Major   Minor   RaidDevice State
        0       8        2        0      active sync   /dev/sda2
        1       8       18        1      active sync   /dev/sdb2
        2       8       34        2      active sync   /dev/sdc2

It has LVM and an ext3 filesystem on it. Here are my timings:

# time dd if=/dev/zero of=big_file bs=4096 count=2560000
2560000+0 records in
2560000+0 records out
10485760000 bytes (10 GB) copied, 264.448 seconds, 39.7 MB/s

real    4m25.740s
user    0m2.272s
sys     0m34.470s

# time dd if=big_file of=/dev/null bs=4096 count=2560000
2560000+0 records in
2560000+0 records out
10485760000 bytes (10 GB) copied, 53.9577 seconds, 194 MB/s

real    0m54.026s
user    0m0.556s
sys     0m4.944s

I'm not quite sure whether I should be disappointed at my writes being 
so slow. Certainly there's a lot of rattling during writing, which 
probably indicates lots of seeks to write ext3's journal. But reads are 
roughly what I expected, at about three times the single-disc throughput.

Cheers,

John.


  reply	other threads:[~2009-04-20 23:46 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 30+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2009-04-20 17:12 Performance of a software raid 5 Johannes Segitz
2009-04-20 23:46 ` John Robinson [this message]
2009-04-21  0:10   ` Johannes Segitz
2009-04-21  0:52     ` John Robinson
2009-04-21  1:05       ` Johannes Segitz
2009-04-21  1:12         ` John Robinson
2009-04-21  1:19         ` NeilBrown
2009-04-21  2:04           ` Johannes Segitz
2009-04-21  5:46             ` Neil Brown
2009-04-21 12:40               ` Johannes Segitz
2009-04-24 13:49                 ` Johannes Segitz
2009-04-26 17:03               ` Johannes Segitz
2009-04-21 18:56             ` Corey Hickey
2009-04-22 12:29               ` Bill Davidsen
2009-04-22 22:32                 ` Corey Hickey
2009-04-22  9:07           ` Goswin von Brederlow
2009-04-21  0:44   ` Poor write performance with write-intent bitmap? John Robinson
2009-04-21  1:33     ` NeilBrown
2009-04-21  2:13       ` John Robinson
2009-04-21  5:50         ` Neil Brown
2009-04-21 12:05           ` John Robinson
2009-05-22 23:00             ` Redeeman
2009-04-22  9:16         ` Goswin von Brederlow
2009-04-22 12:41           ` John Robinson
2009-04-22 14:02             ` Goswin von Brederlow
2009-04-23  7:48               ` John Robinson
2009-04-22 14:21             ` Andre Noll
2009-04-23  8:04               ` John Robinson
2009-04-23 20:23                 ` Goswin von Brederlow
2009-04-21 16:00       ` 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=49ED096E.1000002@anonymous.org.uk \
    --to=john.robinson@anonymous.org.uk \
    --cc=johannes.segitz@gmail.com \
    --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.