linux-raid.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Hans Kristian Rosbach <hk@isphuset.no>
To: Gordon Henderson <gordon@drogon.net>
Cc: linux-raid@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: RAID1 & 2.6.9 performance problem
Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2005 16:51:21 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <1105977081.15184.12.camel@linux.local> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.56.0501171528010.21510@lion.drogon.net>

> As I understand it, it reads "chunksize" blocks from one drive, then
> switches to the other drive, then back again.
>
> Try a bigger read - eg:
> 
>   time dd if=/dev/md6 of=/dev/null bs=128K count=8192
> 
> but I don't think there are any real gains to be made with RAID-1 - your
> results more or less track everything I've seen and used with RAID-1 - ie.
> disk read speed is the same as reading from a single device, and never
> significantly faster.

Actually I have managed to get about 30-40% higher throughput with just
a little hacking on the code that selects what disk to use.

Problem is
-It selects the disk that is closest to the wanted sector by remembering
 what sector was last requested and what disk was used for it.
-For sequential reads (sucha as hdparm) it will override and use the
 same disk anyways. (sector = lastsector+1)

I gained a lot of throughput by alternating disk, but seek time was
roughly doubled. I also tried to get smart and played some with the
code in order to avoid seeking both disks back and forth wildly when
there were two sequential reads. I didn't find a good way to do it
unfortunately.

I'm not going to make any patch available, because I removed bad-disk
checking in order to simplify it.

-HK


  reply	other threads:[~2005-01-17 15:51 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 [this message]
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 ` RAID1 & 2.6.9 performance problem J. Ryan Earl
2005-01-18 17:34   ` 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=1105977081.15184.12.camel@linux.local \
    --to=hk@isphuset.no \
    --cc=gordon@drogon.net \
    --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 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).