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
next prev parent 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).