From: Thomas Fjellstrom <tfjellstrom@shaw.ca>
To: Jon Nelson <jnelson-linux-raid@jamponi.net>
Cc: LinuxRaid <linux-raid@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: unbelievably bad performance: 2.6.27.37 and raid6
Date: Sat, 31 Oct 2009 12:43:35 -0600 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <200910311243.35126.tfjellstrom@shaw.ca> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <cccedfc60910310855l5ca6c42aj503fb0e4fd6232ad@mail.gmail.com>
On Sat October 31 2009, Jon Nelson wrote:
> I have a 4 disk raid6. The disks are individually capable of (at
> least) 75MB/s on average.
> The raid6 looks like this:
>
> md0 : active raid6 sda4[0] sdc4[5] sdd4[4] sdb4[6]
> 613409536 blocks super 1.1 level 6, 64k chunk, algorithm 2 [4/4]
> [UUUU]
>
> The raid serves basically as an lvm physical volume.
>
> While rsyncing a file from an ext3 filesystem to a jfs filesystem, I
> am observing speeds in the 10-15MB/s range.
> That seems really really slow.
>
> Using vmstat, I see similar numbers (I'm averaging a bit, I'll see
> lows of 6MB/s and highs of 18-20MB/s, but these are infrequent.)
> The system is, for the most part, otherwise unloaded.
>
> I looked at stripe_cache_size and increased it to 384 - no difference.
> blockdev --getra reports 256 for all involved raid components.
> I'm using the deadline I/O scheduler.
>
> Am I crazy? Is 12.5MB/s (average) what I should expect, here? What
> might I look at here?
>
I can't say I see numbers that bad.. But I do get 1/3 or less of the
performance with .29, .30, .31, and .32 than I get with .26. I haven't tried
any other kernels as these are the only ones I've been able to grab from apt
;)
I get something on the order of 100MB/s write and read with newer kernels,
with really bursty behaviour, and with .26, its not as fast as it COULD be,
but at least I get 200-300MB/s, which is reasonable.
Now if your two file systems are on the same LVM VG, that could have an
impact on performance.
--
Thomas Fjellstrom
tfjellstrom@shaw.ca
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2009-10-31 18:43 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 26+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2009-10-31 15:55 unbelievably bad performance: 2.6.27.37 and raid6 Jon Nelson
2009-10-31 18:43 ` Thomas Fjellstrom [this message]
2009-11-01 19:37 ` Andrew Dunn
2009-11-01 19:41 ` Thomas Fjellstrom
2009-11-01 23:43 ` NeilBrown
2009-11-01 23:47 ` Thomas Fjellstrom
2009-11-01 23:53 ` Jon Nelson
2009-11-02 2:28 ` Neil Brown
2009-11-01 23:55 ` Andrew Dunn
2009-11-04 14:43 ` CoolCold
2009-10-31 19:59 ` Christian Pernegger
2009-11-02 19:39 ` Jon Nelson
2009-11-02 20:01 ` Christian Pernegger
2009-11-01 7:17 ` Kristleifur Daðason
2009-11-02 14:54 ` Bill Davidsen
2009-11-02 15:03 ` Jon Nelson
2009-11-03 5:36 ` NeilBrown
2009-11-03 6:09 ` Michael Evans
2009-11-03 6:28 ` NeilBrown
2009-11-03 6:39 ` Michael Evans
2009-11-03 6:46 ` Michael Evans
2009-11-03 9:16 ` NeilBrown
2009-11-03 13:07 ` Goswin von Brederlow
2009-11-03 16:28 ` Michael Evans
2009-11-03 19:26 ` Goswin von Brederlow
2009-11-02 18:51 ` Christian Pernegger
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=200910311243.35126.tfjellstrom@shaw.ca \
--to=tfjellstrom@shaw.ca \
--cc=jnelson-linux-raid@jamponi.net \
--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).