All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Divan Santana <divan@s-tainment.co.za>
To: linux-raid@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Slow RAID 5 performance all of a sudden
Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2013 22:10:58 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <512BC552.8090000@s-tainment.co.za> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <50F27901.4070404@s-tainment.co.za>

Hi All,

Hoping someone here will have a clue what I can check next?
Is this the right ml for this type of question?

On 01/13/2013 11:06 AM, Divan Santana wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> I've done my home work(tried to) to investigate this slow RAID 5 
> performance all of a sudden. It doesn't appear to be any hardware 
> problem(although perhaps it is).
>
> Would you more clued up guys  have a quick look below and let me know 
> what sort of steps I can next to try make progress with this?
>
> Note below tests done with:
> * Almost no other IO activity on the systems
> * Mem+cpu usage very low
>
> == Problematic RAID details (RAID A) ==
> # mdadm --detail -vvv /dev/md0
> /dev/md0:
>         Version : 1.2
>   Creation Time : Sat Oct 29 08:08:17 2011
>      Raid Level : raid5
>      Array Size : 3906635776 (3725.66 GiB 4000.40 GB)
>   Used Dev Size : 1953317888 (1862.83 GiB 2000.20 GB)
>    Raid Devices : 3
>   Total Devices : 3
>     Persistence : Superblock is persistent
>
>     Update Time : Sun Jan 13 10:53:48 2013
>           State : clean
>  Active Devices : 3
> Working Devices : 3
>  Failed Devices : 0
>   Spare Devices : 0
>
>          Layout : left-symmetric
>      Chunk Size : 512K
>
>            Name : st0000:0
>            UUID : 23b5f98b:9f950291:d00a9762:63c83168
>          Events : 361
>
>     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
>
> # blkid|grep md0
> /dev/md0: UUID="9cfb479f-8062-41fe-b24f-37bff20a203c" TYPE="crypto_LUKS"
> # cat /etc/crypttab
> crypt UUID=9cfb479f-8062-41fe-b24f-37bff20a203c 
> /dev/disk/by-uuid/0d903ca9-5e08-4bea-bc1d-ac6483a109b6:/secretkey 
> luks,keyscript=/lib/cryptsetup/scripts/passdev
>
> # ll /dev/mapper/crypt
> lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 7 Jan  8 07:51 /dev/mapper/crypt -> ../dm-0
> # pvs
>   PV         VG   Fmt  Attr PSize PFree
>   /dev/dm-0  vg0  lvm2 a-   3,64t 596,68g
> # vgs
>   VG   #PV #LV #SN Attr   VSize VFree
>   vg0    1  15   0 wz--n- 3,64t 596,68g
> # df -Ph / |column -t
> Filesystem            Size  Used  Avail  Use%  Mounted  on
> /dev/mapper/vg0-root  19G   8,5G  9,0G   49%   /
>
>
> # hdparm -Tt /dev/sda
> /dev/sda:
>   Timing cached reads:   23792 MB in  2.00 seconds = 11907.88 MB/sec
>  Timing buffered disk reads: 336 MB in  3.01 seconds = 111.73 MB/sec
>
> # hdparm -Tt /dev/sdb
> /dev/sdb:
>  Timing cached reads:   26736 MB in  2.00 seconds = 13382.64 MB/sec
>  Timing buffered disk reads: 366 MB in  3.01 seconds = 121.63 MB/sec
>
> # hdparm -Tt /dev/sdc
> /dev/sdc:
>   Timing cached reads:   27138 MB in  2.00 seconds = 13586.04 MB/sec
>  Timing buffered disk reads: 356 MB in  3.00 seconds = 118.47 MB/sec
>
> # time dd if=/dev/zero of=/root/test.file oflag=direct bs=1M count=1024
> 1024+0 records in
> 1024+0 records out
> 1073741824 bytes (1.1 GB) copied, 66.6886 s, 16.1 MB/s
>
> real    1m6.716s
> user    0m0.008s
> sys     0m0.232s
>
>
> # cat /proc/mdstat
> Personalities : [raid1] [raid6] [raid5] [raid4] [linear] [multipath] 
> [raid0] [raid10]
> md1 : active raid1 sda3[0] sdb3[1] sdc3[2]
>       192500 blocks super 1.2 [3/3] [UUU]
>
> md0 : active raid5 sdc2[2] sdb2[1] sda2[0]
>       3906635776 blocks super 1.2 level 5, 512k chunk, algorithm 2 
> [3/3] [UUU]
>       [>....................]  check =  0.0% (1786240/1953317888) 
> finish=31477.6min speed=1032K/sec
>
> unused devices: <none>
>
> Notice in the above:
> * how slow the mdadm scan takes (speed=1032K/sec)
> * That writing a file is slow at 16.1MB/s despite the individual drive 
> speeds being faster
>
> == Normal RAID details (RAID B) ==
> # hdparm -Tt /dev/sda
>
> /dev/sda:
>  Timing cached reads:   23842 MB in  2.00 seconds = 11932.63 MB/sec
>  Timing buffered disk reads:  312 MB in  3.00 seconds = 103.89 MB/sec
> # hdparm -Tt /dev/sdb
>
> /dev/sdb:
>  Timing cached reads:   22530 MB in  2.00 seconds = 11275.78 MB/sec
>  Timing buffered disk reads:  272 MB in  3.01 seconds =  90.43 MB/sec
> # hdparm -Tt /dev/sdc
>
> /dev/sdc:
>  Timing cached reads:   22630 MB in  2.00 seconds = 11326.20 MB/sec
>  Timing buffered disk reads:  260 MB in  3.02 seconds =  86.22 MB/sec
> # time dd if=/dev/zero of=/root/test.file oflag=direct bs=1M count=1024
> 1024+0 records in
> 1024+0 records out
> 1073741824 bytes (1.1 GB) copied, 7.40439 s, 145 MB/s
>
> real    0m7.407s
> user    0m0.000s
> sys     0m0.710s
>
> # cat /proc/mdstat
> Personalities : [raid1] [raid6] [raid5] [raid4] [linear] [multipath] 
> [raid0] [raid10]
> md1 : active raid5 sdb2[1] sdc2[2] sda2[0] sdd2[3](S)
>       1952546688 blocks level 5, 64k chunk, algorithm 2 [3/3] [UUU]
>       [=>...................]  check =  7.1% (70111616/976273344) 
> finish=279.8min speed=53976K/sec
>
> md0 : active raid1 sdb1[1] sda1[0] sdc1[2] sdd1[3](S)
>       487360 blocks [3/3] [UUU]
>
> unused devices: <none>
>
> Notice above that the:
> * mdadm scan speed is much faster
> * the same dd command writes a lot faster
>
> == Difference between RAID A and RAID B ==
> * A ubuntu 12.04.1 | B ubuntu 10.04.4
> * A GPT | B msdos partitions
> * A Full disk encryption+LVM+ext4 | B no encryption+LVM+ext4
> * A 3 x 2.00 TB, ST32000641AS | B 3 x 1TB + active spare
> * A 512K chunk | B 64K chunk
> * A stride 128 | B 16
> * A stripe width 256 | B 32.
> * A and B FS block size 4k
> As far as I can see the FS block size+ chunk size + stripe width + 
> stride is already optimal for RAID A(although if it wasn't I don't 
> think that would be the issue anyway as I've noticed the slow down 
> lately only).
>
> I also ran SMART tests on the three disks in the RAID A and all seem 
> fine:
>  # smartctl -a /dev/sda|grep Completed
> # 1  Extended offline    Completed without error       00% 9927         -
> # 2  Conveyance offline  Completed without error       00% 9911         -
> # 3  Short offline       Completed without error       00% 9911         -
>  # smartctl -a /dev/sdb|grep Completed
> # 1  Extended offline    Completed without error       00% 
> 10043         -
> # 2  Conveyance offline  Completed without error       00% 9911         -
> # 3  Short offline       Completed without error       00% 9911         -
>  # smartctl -a /dev/sdc|grep Completed
> # 1  Extended offline    Completed without error       00% 
> 10052         -
> # 2  Conveyance offline  Completed without error       00% 9912         -
> # 3  Short offline       Completed without error       00% 9912         -
>
> Anyone have any ideas what I can do to troubleshoot this further or 
> what may be causing this?
>

-- 
Best regards,
Divan Santana
+27 82 787 8522


  parent reply	other threads:[~2013-02-25 20:10 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2013-01-13  9:06 Slow RAID 5 performance all of a sudden Divan Santana
2013-01-13 13:40 ` Mikael Abrahamsson
2013-02-25 20:10 ` Divan Santana [this message]
2013-02-25 20:48   ` Rudy Zijlstra
2013-02-25 21:24     ` Divan Santana
2013-02-25 21:29       ` Steven Haigh

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=512BC552.8090000@s-tainment.co.za \
    --to=divan@s-tainment.co.za \
    --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.