linux-raid.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Yuehai Xu <yuehaixu@gmail.com>
To: linux-raid@vger.kernel.org
Cc: yhxu@wayne.edu
Subject: The huge different performance of sequential read between RAID0 and RAID5
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 2010 22:16:12 -0500	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <100eff551001271916y116de081la77982f4b5a03c73@mail.gmail.com> (raw)

Hi,

When I use IOZONE to test sequential read performance, I notice the
result between RAID0 and RAID5 is totally different.

Below is the message from cat /proc/mdstat:
Personalities : [linear] [multipath] [raid0] [raid1] [raid6] [raid5]
[raid4] [raid10]
md0 : active raid5 sdh1[7] sdg1[5] sdf1[4] sde1[3] sdd1[2] sdc1[1] sdb1[0]
      631353600 blocks level 5, 64k chunk, algorithm 2 [7/6] [UUUUUU_]
      [======>..............]  recovery = 30.6% (32202272/105225600)
finish=14.7min speed=82429K/sec

unused devices: <none>

The first question is that why the recovery is done after every time I
setup RAID5? I use such command to setup RAID5:
mdadm --create /dev/md0 --level=5 --raid-devices=7 /dev/sdb1 /dev/sdc1
/dev/sdd1 /dev/sde1 /dev/sdf1 /dev/sdg1 /dev/sdh1

Anyway, after the recovery, I start to test. I divide 10 partitions in
RAID5 and RAID0, the mount info is:
/dev/md0p5             38G  817M   35G   3% /mnt/md0p5
/dev/md0p6             38G  817M   35G   3% /mnt/md0p6
/dev/md0p7             38G  817M   35G   3% /mnt/md0p7
/dev/md0p8             38G  817M   35G   3% /mnt/md0p8
/dev/md0p9             38G  817M   35G   3% /mnt/md0p9
/dev/md0p10            38G  817M   35G   3% /mnt/md0p10
/dev/md0p11            38G  817M   35G   3% /mnt/md0p11
/dev/md0p12            38G  817M   35G   3% /mnt/md0p12
/dev/md0p13            38G  817M   35G   3% /mnt/md0p13
/dev/md0p14            38G  817M   35G   3% /mnt/md0p14

Then I start IOZONE which starts 10 processes to do the sequential
read(iozone -i 1). Each process read 640M file on each partition. The
throughput of RAID0 is about 180M/s, while the throughput of RAID5 is
just 43M/s. Why the performance between RAID0 and RAID5 is so
different?

Yuehai

             reply	other threads:[~2010-01-28  3:16 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2010-01-28  3:16 Yuehai Xu [this message]
2010-01-28  7:06 ` The huge different performance of sequential read between RAID0 and RAID5 Gabor Gombas
2010-01-28 14:31   ` Yuehai Xu
2010-01-28 14:41     ` Gabor Gombas
2010-01-28 14:55       ` Yuehai Xu
2010-01-28 15:27         ` Robin Hill
2010-01-29  6:05           ` Michael Evans
2010-01-29 11:53             ` Goswin von Brederlow
2010-01-30  7:03               ` Michael Evans

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=100eff551001271916y116de081la77982f4b5a03c73@mail.gmail.com \
    --to=yuehaixu@gmail.com \
    --cc=linux-raid@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=yhxu@wayne.edu \
    /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).