linux-raid.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
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


  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).