From: Stan Hoeppner <stan@hardwarefreak.com>
To: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com>
Cc: linux-raid@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Software RAID checksum performance on 24 disks not even close to kernel reported
Date: Wed, 06 Jun 2012 23:06:10 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4FD028B2.1050306@hardwarefreak.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAA9_cmcANJjd8gfagWw5vENABh+n13xFnk7OF-ZzxecfxU719w@mail.gmail.com>
On 6/6/2012 11:09 AM, Dan Williams wrote:
> Hardware raid ultimately does the same shuffling, outside of nvram an
> advantage it has is that parity data does not traverse the bus...
Are you referring to the host data bus(s)? I.e. HT/QPI and PCIe?
With a 24 disk array, a full stripe write is only 1/12th parity data,
less than 10%. And the buses (point to point actually) of 24 drive
caliber systems will usually start at one way B/W of 4GB/s for PCIe 2.0
x8 and with one way B/W from the PCIe controller to the CPU starting at
10.4GB/s for AMD HT 3.0 systems. PCIe x8 is plenty to handle a 24 drive
md RAID 6, using 7.2K SATA drives anyway.
What is a bigger issue, and may actually be what you were referring to,
is read-modify-write B/W, which will incur a full stripe read and write.
For RMW heavy workloads, this is significant. HBA RAID does have a big
advantage here, compared to one's md array possessing the aggregate
performance to saturate the PCIe bus.
--
Stan
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2012-06-07 4:06 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 38+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2012-06-04 23:14 Software RAID checksum performance on 24 disks not even close to kernel reported Ole Tange
2012-06-05 1:26 ` Joe Landman
2012-06-05 3:36 ` Igor M Podlesny
2012-06-05 7:47 ` Ole Tange
2012-06-05 11:25 ` Peter Grandi
2012-06-05 20:57 ` Ole Tange
2012-06-06 17:37 ` Peter Grandi
2012-06-05 14:15 ` Stan Hoeppner
2012-06-05 20:45 ` Ole Tange
2012-06-05 3:39 ` Igor M Podlesny
2012-06-05 7:47 ` Ole Tange
2012-06-05 11:29 ` Igor M Podlesny
2012-06-05 13:09 ` Peter Grandi
2012-06-05 21:17 ` Ole Tange
2012-06-06 1:38 ` Stan Hoeppner
2012-06-05 18:44 ` Ole Tange
2012-06-06 1:40 ` Brad Campbell
2012-06-06 3:48 ` Marcus Sorensen
2012-06-06 11:21 ` Ole Tange
2012-06-06 11:17 ` Ole Tange
2012-06-06 12:58 ` Brad Campbell
2012-06-06 14:11 ` Ole Tange
2012-06-06 16:05 ` Igor M Podlesny
2012-06-06 19:51 ` Ole Tange
2012-06-06 22:21 ` Igor M Podlesny
2012-06-06 22:53 ` Peter Grandi
2012-06-07 3:41 ` Igor M Podlesny
2012-06-07 4:59 ` Stan Hoeppner
2012-06-07 5:22 ` Igor M Podlesny
2012-06-07 9:03 ` Stan Hoeppner
2012-06-07 9:22 ` Igor M Podlesny
2012-06-06 16:09 ` Dan Williams
2012-06-06 19:19 ` Ole Tange
2012-06-06 19:24 ` Dan Williams
2012-06-06 19:26 ` Ole Tange
2012-06-07 4:06 ` Stan Hoeppner [this message]
2012-06-07 14:40 ` Joe Landman
2012-06-08 1:23 ` Stan Hoeppner
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=4FD028B2.1050306@hardwarefreak.com \
--to=stan@hardwarefreak.com \
--cc=dan.j.williams@intel.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.