All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "J. Ryan Earl" <ryan@dynaconnections.com>
To: Janusz Zamecki <janusz@pipi.ma.cx>, linux-raid@vger.kernel.org
Subject: RE: RAID1 & 2.6.9 performance problem
Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2005 11:32:54 -0600	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <OMEKLMBKKEOEENCKLEIDAEFGCAAA.ryan@dynaconnections.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <41EBD827.80701@pipi.ma.cx>

"Please check this out:

hdparm -t /dev/hdg /dev/hde /dev/md6

/dev/hdg:
  Timing buffered disk reads:  184 MB in  3.03 seconds =  60.76 MB/sec

/dev/hde:
  Timing buffered disk reads:  184 MB in  3.01 seconds =  61.08 MB/sec

/dev/md6:
  Timing buffered disk reads:  184 MB in  3.03 seconds =  60.74 MB/sec

I've expected much better /dev/md6 performance (at least 100MB/s)."

This is perfectly normally, I'm not sure why you'd expect better
performance.  You will get 2 parallel sequential reads at around 120MB/sec
assuming you're not bus limited.  A single sequential parallel read can be
no faster than the performance of a single RAID1 disk, though latency should
lower significantly.  I found that average number of read seeks/sec
increases around 80% in going from a single HD to a RAID1 setup.

Think about it and it should make sense.  You have two discs with identical
layouts.  How could you possibly increase the speed of a single sequential
read?  You can't just read half from one drive, half from the other, you'd
always have heads seeking and it would no longer be a sequential read.

-ryan


  parent reply	other threads:[~2005-01-18 17:32 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 21+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2005-01-17 15:22 RAID1 & 2.6.9 performance problem Janusz Zamecki
2005-01-17 15:39 ` Gordon Henderson
2005-01-17 15:51   ` Hans Kristian Rosbach
2005-01-17 16:46     ` Peter T. Breuer
2005-01-18 13:18       ` Hans Kristian Rosbach
2005-01-18 13:43         ` Peter T. Breuer
2005-01-17 20:49     ` Janusz Zamecki
2005-01-17 16:24   ` Andrew Walrond
2005-01-17 16:51     ` Is this hdparm -t output correct? (was Re: RAID1 & 2.6.9 performance problem) Andy Smith
2005-01-17 17:04       ` Andrew Walrond
2005-01-17 18:26         ` RAID1 Corruption Markus Gehring
2005-01-17 19:14           ` Paul Clements
2005-01-17 19:35             ` Tony Mantler
2005-01-17 19:42             ` Markus Gehring
2005-01-17 19:21           ` Sven Anders
2005-01-18 17:32 ` J. Ryan Earl [this message]
2005-01-18 17:34   ` RAID1 & 2.6.9 performance problem J. Ryan Earl
2005-01-18 18:41     ` Janusz Zamecki
2005-01-18 19:18       ` J. Ryan Earl
2005-01-18 19:34         ` Janusz Zamecki
2005-01-18 19:12   ` Janusz Zamecki

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=OMEKLMBKKEOEENCKLEIDAEFGCAAA.ryan@dynaconnections.com \
    --to=ryan@dynaconnections.com \
    --cc=janusz@pipi.ma.cx \
    --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.