linux-raid.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Jakob Oestergaard <jakob@unthought.net>
To: Neil Brown <neilb@cse.unsw.edu.au>
Cc: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>, linux-raid@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: RAID-6
Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2002 03:13:43 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20021113021343.GC22407@unthought.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <15825.22660.685310.237185@notabene.cse.unsw.edu.au>

On Wed, Nov 13, 2002 at 06:37:40AM +1100, Neil Brown wrote:
> On Tuesday November 12, jakob@unthought.net wrote:
> > 
> > You might want to consider using huge chunk-sizes when reading, but
> > making sure that writes can be made on "sub-chunks" - so that one could
> > run a RAID-6 with a 128k chunk size, yet have writes performed on 4k
> > chunks.  This is important for performance on both read and write, but
> > it is an optimization the current RAID-5 code lacks.
> 
> Either I misunderstand your point, or you misunderstand the code.
> 
> A 4k write request will cause a 4k write to a data block and a 4k
> write to a parity block, no matter what the chunk size is. (There may
> also be pre-reading, and possibly several 4k writes will share a
> parity block update).

Writes on a 128k chunk array are significantly slower than writes on a
4k chunk array, according to someone else on this list   -  I wanted to
look into this myself, but now is just a bad time for me (nothing new
on that front).

The benchmark goes:

| some tests on raid5 with 4k and 128k chunk size. The results are as follows:
| Access Spec     4K(MBps)        4K-deg(MBps)    128K(MBps) 128K-deg(MBps)
| 2K Seq Read     23.015089       33.293993       25.415035  32.669278
| 2K Seq Write    27.363041       30.555328       14.185889  16.087862
| 64K Seq Read    22.952559       44.414774       26.02711   44.036993
| 64K Seq Write   25.171833       32.67759        13.97861   15.618126

So down from 27MB/sec to 14MB/sec running 2k-block sequential writes on
a 128k chunk array versus a 4k chunk array (non-degraded).

In degraded mode, the writes degenerate from 30MB/sec to 16MB/sec as the
chunk-size increases.

Something's fishy.

> 
> I see no lacking optimisation, but if you do, I would be keen to hear
> a more detailed explanation.

Well if a 4k write really only causes a 4k write to disk, even with a
128k chunk-size array, then something else is happening...

I didn't do the benchmark, and I didn't get to investigate it further
here, so I can't really say much else productive  :)


 / Jakob "linux-raid message multiplexer" Østergaard

-- 
................................................................
:   jakob@unthought.net   : And I see the elder races,         :
:.........................: putrid forms of man                :
:   Jakob Østergaard      : See him rise and claim the earth,  :
:        OZ9ABN           : his downfall is at hand.           :
:.........................:............{Konkhra}...............:
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-raid" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

  reply	other threads:[~2002-11-13  2:13 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 20+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2002-11-11 18:52 RAID-6 H. Peter Anvin
2002-11-11 21:06 ` RAID-6 Derek Vadala
2002-11-11 22:44 ` RAID-6 Mr. James W. Laferriere
2002-11-11 23:05   ` RAID-6 H. Peter Anvin
2002-11-12 16:22 ` RAID-6 Jakob Oestergaard
2002-11-12 16:30   ` RAID-6 H. Peter Anvin
2002-11-12 19:01     ` RAID-6 H. Peter Anvin
2002-11-12 19:37   ` RAID-6 Neil Brown
2002-11-13  2:13     ` Jakob Oestergaard [this message]
2002-11-13  3:33       ` RAID-6 Neil Brown
2002-11-13 12:29         ` RAID-6 Jakob Oestergaard
2002-11-13 17:33           ` RAID-6 H. Peter Anvin
2002-11-13 18:07             ` RAID-6 Peter L. Ashford
2002-11-13 22:50             ` RAID-6 Neil Brown
2002-11-13 18:42           ` RAID-6 Peter L. Ashford
2002-11-13 22:48           ` RAID-6 Neil Brown
     [not found] <Pine.GSO.4.30.0211111138080.15590-100000@multivac.sdsc.edu>
2002-11-11 19:47 ` RAID-6 H. Peter Anvin
  -- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2005-11-13  9:05 Raid-6 Rebuild question Brad Campbell
2005-11-13 10:05 ` Neil Brown
2005-11-16 17:54   ` RAID-6 Bill Davidsen
2005-11-16 20:39     ` RAID-6 Dan Stromberg
2005-12-29 18:29       ` RAID-6 H. Peter Anvin

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=20021113021343.GC22407@unthought.net \
    --to=jakob@unthought.net \
    --cc=hpa@zytor.com \
    --cc=linux-raid@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=neilb@cse.unsw.edu.au \
    /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).