linux-raid.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Thomas Fjellstrom <tfjellstrom@shaw.ca>
To: Andrew Dunn <andrew.g.dunn@gmail.com>
Cc: Jon Nelson <jnelson-linux-raid@jamponi.net>,
	LinuxRaid <linux-raid@vger.kernel.org>,
	pernegger@gmail.com
Subject: Re: unbelievably bad performance: 2.6.27.37 and raid6
Date: Sun, 1 Nov 2009 13:41:40 -0600	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <200911011241.40735.tfjellstrom@shaw.ca> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4AEDE38F.3080408@gmail.com>

On Sun November 1 2009, Andrew Dunn wrote:
> Are we to expect some resolution in newer kernels?

I assume all of the new per-bdi-writeback work going on in .33+ will have a 
large impact. At least I'm hoping.

> I am going to rebuild my array (backup data and re-create) to modify the
> chunk size this week. I hope to get a much higher performance when
> increasing from 64k chunk size to 1024k.
> 
> Is there a way to modify chunk size in place or does the array need to
> be re-created?

This I'm not sure about. I'd like to be able to reshape to a new chunk size 
for testing.

> Thomas Fjellstrom wrote:
> > 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

  reply	other threads:[~2009-11-01 19:41 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
2009-11-01 19:37   ` Andrew Dunn
2009-11-01 19:41     ` Thomas Fjellstrom [this message]
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=200911011241.40735.tfjellstrom@shaw.ca \
    --to=tfjellstrom@shaw.ca \
    --cc=andrew.g.dunn@gmail.com \
    --cc=jnelson-linux-raid@jamponi.net \
    --cc=linux-raid@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=pernegger@gmail.com \
    /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).