From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mx1.redhat.com (mx1.redhat.com [172.16.48.31]) by int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id i5AGUW031449 for ; Thu, 10 Jun 2004 12:30:32 -0400 Received: from email.careercast.com (email.careercast.com [216.39.101.233]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with SMTP id i5AGUUi5013836 for ; Thu, 10 Jun 2004 12:30:30 -0400 Subject: Re: [linux-lvm] LVM2 seems to chop performance by 33% From: Clint Byrum In-Reply-To: <40C87F8A.7080304@dgreaves.com> References: <40C86F52.4090500@dgreaves.com> <200406101105.47606.StuartHarper@tampabay.rr.com> <40C87F8A.7080304@dgreaves.com> Message-Id: <1086885029.13087.15.camel@localhost> Mime-Version: 1.0 Date: Thu, 10 Jun 2004 09:30:29 -0700 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Reply-To: LVM general discussion and development List-Id: LVM general discussion and development List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: LVM general discussion and development On Thu, 2004-06-10 at 08:34, David Greaves wrote: > Thanks > > I'd tried that, but no real change. I started 1t 128k and also tried > 64k, 256k :) (oh, and 1k) > I did some tests a few months ago with bonnie++.. might offer some encouragement (please don't post this to slashdot.. ;) http://spamaps.org/raidtests.php There's a lot of data there, but if you look at the LVM stuff, you might notice that the concurrent performance (having 3 processes hammering the disks in different places instead of just one) was quite good when compared to flat out RAID5. I'll pay 5% performance for manageability any day. :-D