linux-raid.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Ming Zhang <mingz@ele.uri.edu>
To: Tyler <pml@dtbb.net>
Cc: Linux RAID <linux-raid@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: raid0 low performance
Date: Fri, 01 Jul 2005 08:32:44 -0400	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <1120221164.5507.19.camel@localhost.localdomain> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <42C4AA31.8040307@dtbb.net>

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3507 bytes --]

i also suspect this marvel driver or chip and want to change to another
one. but before buying one, maybe i should gather some information on
which one is the best 8port or 12 port. :P

cpu utilization is not high. < 20%

i write a small program that allocate a piece of buffer and write the
buffer to device again and again synchronously, no mmap, glibc fwrite,
just basic write system call. i can attach the code here if this list
allows.

i tested to write to /dev/null or a ram disk, pretty fast.

ming


On Thu, 2005-06-30 at 19:28 -0700, Tyler wrote:
> My guess at a glance would be either the Marvel driver is at fault, or 
> the simple fact of software raid performance... did you monitor the cpu 
> useage during the tests?  even PCI 32bit, 33mhz should be able to hit 
> 133 Mbytes per second I believe.  What are you writing *from* ? dev/zero 
> or another drive that may not have a read speed high enough to keep up 
> with what is available?
> 
> Tyler.
> 
> Ming Zhang wrote:
> 
> >I meet some strange low performance when run RAID0 with vanilla kernel
> >2.4.27/2.6.11.12.
> >
> >My box is a 2.8G P4 and 1G RAM. 8 400GB SATA disk and A marvel 8port
> >controller. I run marvel 3.4.1 driver. I wrote a small program to write
> >device sequentially and SYNCHRONOUSLY.
> >
> >This is performance of 1 disk. looks fine.
> >
> > 1048576Bytes *     1024 :    55.466MB/s
> >  524288Bytes *     2048 :    55.830MB/s
> >  262144Bytes *     4096 :    55.782MB/s
> >  131072Bytes *     8192 :    55.567MB/s
> >   65536Bytes *    16384 :    55.926MB/s
> >   32768Bytes *    32768 :    54.344MB/s
> >   16384Bytes *    65536 :    41.415MB/s
> >    8192Bytes *    65536 :    26.499MB/s
> >    4096Bytes *    65536 :    15.110MB/s
> >    2048Bytes *    65536 :     8.422MB/s
> >    1024Bytes *    65536 :     4.318MB/s
> >
> >But when run 2 disk raid0, there is only 10% improvement.
> >
> >md3 : active raid0 sdb[1] sda[0]
> >      781422592 blocks 64k chunks
> > 1048576Bytes *     1024 :    67.300MB/s
> >  524288Bytes *     2048 :    66.796MB/s
> >  262144Bytes *     4096 :    65.728MB/s
> >  131072Bytes *     8192 :    65.017MB/s
> >   65536Bytes *    16384 :    59.223MB/s
> >   32768Bytes *    32768 :    49.766MB/s
> >   16384Bytes *    65536 :    39.162MB/s
> >    8192Bytes *    65536 :    26.386MB/s
> >    4096Bytes *    65536 :    15.084MB/s
> >    2048Bytes *    65536 :     8.383MB/s
> >    1024Bytes *    65536 :     4.303MB/s
> >
> >And when use 4 disks, the speed is slower!
> >md0 : active raid0 sdh[3] sdg[2] sdf[1] sde[0]
> >      1562845184 blocks 64k chunks
> > 1048576Bytes *     1024 :    58.032MB/s
> >  524288Bytes *     2048 :    56.994MB/s
> >  262144Bytes *     4096 :    58.289MB/s
> >  131072Bytes *     8192 :    65.999MB/s
> >   65536Bytes *    16384 :    59.723MB/s
> >   32768Bytes *    32768 :    50.061MB/s
> >   16384Bytes *    65536 :    38.689MB/s
> >    8192Bytes *    65536 :    26.169MB/s
> >    4096Bytes *    65536 :    15.169MB/s
> >    2048Bytes *    65536 :     8.378MB/s
> >    1024Bytes *    65536 :     4.287MB/s
> >
> >
> >Any hint on this?
> >
> >* I do not know how to check current PCI bus speed and I am not sure
> >whether is limited by that. It is a 64bit card but I am not sure if it
> >is run at 66MHZ. Should be, but want to check to make sure.
> >* I tested each disk and all disk performs OK.
> >
> >
> >Thanks
> >
> >
> >Ming
> >
> >  
> >
> 

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

  parent reply	other threads:[~2005-07-01 12:32 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 14+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2005-07-01  2:15 raid0 low performance Ming Zhang
2005-07-01  2:28 ` Tyler
2005-07-01  2:57   ` John Madden
2005-07-01 12:41     ` Ming Zhang
2005-07-01 12:54       ` John Madden
2005-07-01 13:10         ` Ming Zhang
2005-07-01 12:32   ` Ming Zhang [this message]
2005-07-01 12:55 ` Guy
2005-07-01 13:17   ` Ming Zhang
2005-07-01 13:54     ` Ming Zhang
2005-07-05  0:13       ` Mark Hahn
2005-07-05  0:26         ` Ming Zhang
2005-07-05 13:19           ` Ming Zhang
2005-07-01 14:42     ` Ming Zhang

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=1120221164.5507.19.camel@localhost.localdomain \
    --to=mingz@ele.uri.edu \
    --cc=linux-raid@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=pml@dtbb.net \
    /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).