From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Keld =?iso-8859-1?Q?J=F8rn?= Simonsen Subject: Re: performance problems with raid10,f2 Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2008 11:36:56 +0100 Message-ID: <20080325103656.GA4911@rap.rap.dk> References: <20080314231151.GA14568@rap.rap.dk> <20080320172817.GA27070@rap.rap.dk> <18408.35320.92714.891870@notabene.brown> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <18408.35320.92714.891870@notabene.brown> Sender: linux-raid-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Neil Brown Cc: linux-raid@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-raid.ids On Tue, Mar 25, 2008 at 04:13:28PM +1100, Neil Brown wrote: > On Thursday March 20, keld@dkuug.dk wrote: > > On Sat, Mar 15, 2008 at 12:11:51AM +0100, Keld J=F8rn Simonsen wrot= e: > > > Hi > > >=20 > > > I have a 4 drive array with 1 TB Hitachi disks, formatted as raid= 10,f2 > > >=20 > > > I had some strange observations: > > >=20 > > > 1. while resyncing I could get the raid to give me about 320 MB/s= in > > > sequential read, which was good. After resync had been done, and = with > > > all 4 drives active, I only get 115 MB/s. > >=20 > > This was reproducable. I dont know what could be wrong. >=20 > Is this with, or without, your patch to avoid "read-balancing" for > raid10/far layouts? > It sounds like it is without that patch ???? >=20 > NeilBrown I tried both without the patch and with the patch, with almost same res= ulte. Is resync building some table, and could that be it? Or could it be some time of inode traffic? best regards keld -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-raid" i= n the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html