linux-raid.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Ming Zhang <mingz@ele.uri.edu>
To: Dan Christensen <jdc@uwo.ca>
Cc: Linux RAID <linux-raid@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: RAID-5 streaming read performance
Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2005 10:29:57 -0400	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <1121264997.5504.29.camel@localhost.localdomain> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <87vf3eeqe2.fsf@uwo.ca>

On Wed, 2005-07-13 at 10:23 -0400, Dan Christensen wrote:
> Ming Zhang <mingz@ele.uri.edu> writes:
> 
> > test on a production environment is too dangerous. :P
> > and many benchmark tool u can not perform as well.
> 
> Well, I put "production" in quotes because this is just a home mythtv
> box.  :-)  So there are plenty of times when it is idle and I can do
> benchmarks.  But I can't erase the hard drives in my tests.
> 
> > LVM overhead is small, but file system overhead is hard to say.
> 
> I expected LVM overhead to be small, but in my tests it is very high.
> I plan to discuss this on the lvm mailing list after I've got the RAID
> working as well as possible, but as an example:
> 
> Streaming reads using dd to /dev/null:
> 
> component partitions, e.g. /dev/sda7: 58MB/s
> raid device /dev/md2:                 59MB/s
> lvm device /dev/main/media:           34MB/s
> 
> So something is seriously wrong with my lvm set-up (or with lvm).  The
> lvm device is linearly mapped to the initial blocks of md2, so the
> last two tests should be reading the same blocks from disk.
this is interesting.


> 
> >> My preliminary finding is that raid writes are faster than non-raid
> >> writes:  49MB/s vs 39MB/s.  Still not stellar performance, though.
> >> Question for the list:  if I'm doing a long sequential write, naively
> >> each parity block will get recalculated and rewritten several times,
> >> once for each non-parity block in the stripe.  Does the write-caching
> >> that the kernel does mean that each parity block will only get written
> >> once?
> > 
> > if you write sequential, you might see a stripe write thus write only
> > once.
> 
> Glad to hear it.  In that case, sequential writes to a RAID-5 device
> with 4 physical drives should be up to 3 times faster than writes to a
> single device (ignoring journaling, time for calculating parity, bus
> bandwidth issues, etc).
sounds reasonable but hard to see i feel.

> 
> Is this "stripe write" something that the md layer does to optimize
> things?  In other words, does the md layer cache writes and write a
> stripe at a time when that's possible?  Or is this just an automatic
> effect of the general purpose write-caching that the kernel does?
md people will give you more details. :)




> 
> > but if you write on file system and file system has meta data write, log
> > write, then things become complicated. 
> 
> Yes.  For now I'm starting at the bottom and working up...
> 
> > you can use iostat to see r/w on your disk.
> 
> Thanks, I'll try that.
> 
> Dan


  reply	other threads:[~2005-07-13 14:29 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 41+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2005-07-11 15:11 RAID-5 streaming read performance Dan Christensen
2005-07-13  2:08 ` Ming Zhang
2005-07-13  2:52   ` Dan Christensen
2005-07-13  3:15     ` berk walker
2005-07-13 12:24     ` Ming Zhang
2005-07-13 12:48       ` Dan Christensen
2005-07-13 12:52         ` Ming Zhang
2005-07-13 14:23           ` Dan Christensen
2005-07-13 14:29             ` Ming Zhang [this message]
2005-07-13 17:56               ` Dan Christensen
2005-07-13 22:38                 ` Neil Brown
2005-07-14  0:09                   ` Ming Zhang
2005-07-14  1:16                     ` Neil Brown
2005-07-14  1:25                       ` Ming Zhang
2005-07-13 18:02             ` David Greaves
2005-07-13 18:14               ` Ming Zhang
2005-07-13 21:18                 ` David Greaves
2005-07-13 21:44                   ` Ming Zhang
2005-07-13 21:50                     ` David Greaves
2005-07-13 21:55                       ` Ming Zhang
2005-07-13 22:52                   ` Neil Brown
2005-07-14  3:58               ` Dan Christensen
2005-07-14  4:13                 ` Mark Hahn
2005-07-14 21:16                   ` Dan Christensen
2005-07-14 21:30                     ` Ming Zhang
2005-07-14 23:29                       ` Mark Hahn
2005-07-15  1:23                         ` Ming Zhang
2005-07-15  2:11                           ` Dan Christensen
2005-07-15 12:28                             ` Ming Zhang
2005-07-14 12:30                 ` Ming Zhang
2005-07-14 14:23                   ` Ming Zhang
2005-07-14 17:54                   ` Dan Christensen
2005-07-14 18:00                     ` Ming Zhang
2005-07-14 18:03                       ` Dan Christensen
2005-07-14 18:10                         ` Ming Zhang
2005-07-14 19:16                           ` Dan Christensen
2005-07-14 20:13                             ` Ming Zhang
2005-07-15  2:38                 ` Dan Christensen
2005-07-15  6:01                   ` Holger Kiehl
2005-07-15 12:29                     ` Ming Zhang
2005-07-13 22:42         ` Neil Brown

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=1121264997.5504.29.camel@localhost.localdomain \
    --to=mingz@ele.uri.edu \
    --cc=jdc@uwo.ca \
    --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).