linux-lvm.redhat.com archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Doug Ledford <dledford@redhat.com>
To: linux-lvm@redhat.com
Subject: Re: [linux-lvm] Volume alignment over RAID
Date: Thu, 27 May 2010 12:40:57 -0400	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <4BFEA099.9020005@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20100522072321.GB12294@maude.comedia.it>

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1569 bytes --]

On 05/22/2010 03:23 AM, Luca Berra wrote:
> On Thu, May 20, 2010 at 11:48:31PM -0700, Linda A. Walsh wrote:
>> Luca Berra wrote:
>>>> I'm using a RAID 'chunk' size of 64k as suggested by the RAID
>>>> documentation
>>>> and am using 6 disks to create a RAID6, giving 4 units of
>>>> data/stripe.  Does
>>> I suppose by raid you mean md, so i wonder what documentation you were
>>> looking at?
>> ---
>>     Well, doc in 2 different raid controllers LSI and rocket raid both
>> suggest 64K as a unit size (forget, their exact term).

Hardware raid and software raid are two entirely different things when
it comes to optimization.

>>> I think 64k might be small as a chunk size, depending on your array size
>>> you probably want a bigger size.
>> ---
>>     Really?  What are the trade offs?  Array size well 6 disks and 4
>> of data.
> ok, i trew the stone ..
> First we have to consider usage scenarios, i.e. average read and average
> write size, large reads benefit from larger chunks, small writes with
> too large chunks would still result on whole stripe Read-Modify-Write.
> 
> there were people on linux-raid ml doing benchmarks, and iirc using
> chunks between 256k and 1m gave better average results

That was me.  The best results are with 256 or 512k chunk sizes.  Above
512k you don't get any more benefit.

-- 
Doug Ledford <dledford@redhat.com>
              GPG KeyID: CFBFF194
	      http://people.redhat.com/dledford

Infiniband specific RPMs available at
	      http://people.redhat.com/dledford/Infiniband


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

  reply	other threads:[~2010-05-27 16:41 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 14+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2010-05-20 21:24 [linux-lvm] Volume alignment over RAID Linda A. Walsh
2010-05-21  5:10 ` Luca Berra
2010-05-21  6:48   ` Linda A. Walsh
2010-05-21  7:19     ` Lyn Rees
2010-05-21 18:50       ` Linda A. Walsh
2010-05-22  7:36         ` Luca Berra
2010-05-22  7:23     ` Luca Berra
2010-05-27 16:40       ` Doug Ledford [this message]
2010-06-21  4:26         ` [linux-lvm] RAID chunk size & LVM 'offset' affecting RAID stripe alignment Linda A. Walsh
2010-06-23 18:59           ` Doug Ledford
2010-06-25  8:36             ` Linda A. Walsh
2010-06-26  1:50               ` Doug Ledford
2010-06-28 18:56               ` Charles Marcus
2010-06-29 21:33                 ` Linda A. Walsh

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=4BFEA099.9020005@redhat.com \
    --to=dledford@redhat.com \
    --cc=linux-lvm@redhat.com \
    /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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).