From: Steven Ihde <x-linux-raid@hamachi.dyndns.org>
To: Mark Hahn <hahn@physics.mcmaster.ca>
Cc: Guy <bugzilla@watkins-home.com>, linux-raid@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Looking for the cause of poor I/O performance
Date: Sat, 4 Dec 2004 17:00:08 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20041205010008.GA8091@hamachi.dyndns.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0412041809530.21262-100000@coffee.psychology.mcmaster.ca>
Well while we're on the subject ;-)
I have a three-disk raid5 array. In summary, the raid5 performs
slightly worse than any of the three disks alone. Memory bandwidth
tested by hdparm seems more than adequate (1.6GB/sec). Shouldn't
read-balancing give me some benefit here? Kernel is 2.6.8.
The system is an i865PE (I think) chipset with a 2.4GHz P4. I believe
the memory bandwidth is more than adequate and that the disks are
performing up to spec when tested alone (Seagate Barracudas, hda & hdc
are 80GB PATA, sda is 120GB SATA):
/dev/hda:
Timing cached reads: 3356 MB in 2.00 seconds = 1676.58 MB/sec
Timing buffered disk reads: 122 MB in 3.03 seconds = 40.24 MB/sec
/dev/hdc:
Timing cached reads: 3316 MB in 2.00 seconds = 1657.42 MB/sec
Timing buffered disk reads: 122 MB in 3.02 seconds = 40.34 MB/sec
/dev/sda:
Timing cached reads: 3344 MB in 2.00 seconds = 1673.09 MB/sec
Timing buffered disk reads: 122 MB in 3.04 seconds = 40.19 MB/sec
Now, the raid5 array:
/dev/md1:
Timing cached reads: 3408 MB in 2.00 seconds = 1704.26 MB/sec
Timing buffered disk reads: 114 MB in 3.01 seconds = 37.83 MB/sec
Slightly worse! Bonnie++ gives me an even lower number, about 30.9
MB/sec for sequential input from the raid5.
hda and hdc are attached to the on-board PATA interfaces (one per
channel, no slaves on either channel). sda is attached to the
on-board SATA interface (the other on-board SATA is empty).
A possible clue is that when tested individually but in parallel, hda
and hdc both halve their bandwidth:
/dev/hda:
Timing cached reads: 1552 MB in 2.00 seconds = 774.57 MB/sec
Timing buffered disk reads: 68 MB in 3.07 seconds = 22.15 MB/sec
/dev/hdc:
Timing cached reads: 784 MB in 2.00 seconds = 391.86 MB/sec
Timing buffered disk reads: 68 MB in 3.02 seconds = 22.54 MB/sec
/dev/sda:
Timing cached reads: 836 MB in 2.00 seconds = 417.65 MB/sec
Timing buffered disk reads: 120 MB in 3.00 seconds = 39.94 MB/sec
Could there be contention for some shared resource in the on-board
PATA chipset between hda and hdc? Would moving one of them to a
separate IDE controller on a PCI card help?
Am I unreasonable to think that I should be getting better than 37
MB/sec on raid5 read performance, given that each disk alone seems
capable of 40 MB/sec?
Thanks,
Steve
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2004-12-05 1:00 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 39+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2004-12-02 16:38 Looking for the cause of poor I/O performance TJ
2004-12-03 0:49 ` Mark Hahn
2004-12-03 3:54 ` Guy
2004-12-03 6:33 ` TJ
2004-12-03 7:38 ` Guy
2004-12-04 15:23 ` TJ
2004-12-04 17:59 ` Guy
2004-12-04 23:51 ` Mark Hahn
2004-12-05 1:00 ` Steven Ihde [this message]
2004-12-06 17:48 ` Steven Ihde
2004-12-06 19:29 ` Guy
2004-12-06 21:10 ` David Greaves
2004-12-06 23:02 ` Guy
2004-12-08 9:24 ` David Greaves
2004-12-08 18:31 ` Guy
2004-12-08 22:00 ` Steven Ihde
2004-12-08 22:25 ` Guy
2004-12-08 22:41 ` Guy
2004-12-09 1:40 ` Steven Ihde
2004-12-12 8:56 ` Looking for the cause of poor I/O performance - a test script David Greaves
2004-12-28 0:13 ` Steven Ihde
2004-12-06 21:16 ` Looking for the cause of poor I/O performance Steven Ihde
2004-12-06 21:42 ` documentation of /sys/vm/max-readahead Morten Sylvest Olsen
2004-12-05 2:16 ` Looking for the cause of poor I/O performance Guy
2004-12-05 15:14 ` TJ
2004-12-06 21:39 ` Mark Hahn
2004-12-05 15:17 ` TJ
2004-12-06 21:34 ` Mark Hahn
2004-12-06 23:06 ` Guy
2004-12-03 6:51 ` TJ
2004-12-03 20:03 ` TJ
2004-12-04 22:59 ` Mark Hahn
2004-12-03 7:12 ` TJ
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2004-12-03 11:30 TJ
2004-12-03 11:46 ` Erik Mouw
2004-12-03 15:09 ` TJ
2004-12-03 16:25 ` Erik Mouw
2004-12-03 16:32 ` David Greaves
2004-12-03 16:50 ` Guy
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=20041205010008.GA8091@hamachi.dyndns.org \
--to=x-linux-raid@hamachi.dyndns.org \
--cc=bugzilla@watkins-home.com \
--cc=hahn@physics.mcmaster.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).