linux-raid.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: NeilBrown <neilb@suse.de>
To: "Keld Jørn Simonsen" <keld@keldix.com>
Cc: "Mathias Burén" <mathias.buren@gmail.com>,
	"Stan Hoeppner" <stan@hardwarefreak.com>,
	"Roman Mamedov" <rm@romanrm.ru>, CoolCold <coolthecold@gmail.com>,
	Linux-RAID <linux-raid@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Performance question, RAID5
Date: Tue, 1 Feb 2011 07:42:57 +1100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20110201074257.3c771181@notabene.brown> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20110131131131.GA26525@www2.open-std.org>

On Mon, 31 Jan 2011 14:11:31 +0100 Keld Jørn Simonsen <keld@keldix.com> wrote:

> On Mon, Jan 31, 2011 at 09:37:46AM +0000, Mathias Burén wrote:
> > On 31 January 2011 08:52, Keld Jørn Simonsen <keld@keldix.com> wrote:
> > > If your intallation is CPU bound, and you are
> > > using an Atom N270 processor or the like, well some ideas:
> > >
> > > The Atom CPU may have threading, so you could run 2 RAIDs
> > > which then probably would run in each thread.
> > > It would cost you 1 more disk if you run 2 RAID5's
> > > so you get 8 TB payload out of your 12 GB total (6 drives of 2 TB each).
> > >
> > > Another way to get better performance could be to use less
> > > CPU-intensitive RAID types. RAID5 is intensitive as it needs to
> > > calculate XOR information all the time. Maybe a mirrored
> > > raid type like RAID10,f2 would give you less CPU usage,
> > > and the run 2 RAIDS to have it running in both hyperthreads.
> > > Here you would then only get 6 TB payload of your 12 GB disks,
> > > but then also probably a faster system.
> > >
> > > Best regards
> > > keld
> > >
> > 
> > Hi,
> > 
> > It's interesting what you say about the XOR calculations. I thought
> > that it was only calculated on writes? The Atom (330) has HT, so Linux
> > sees 4 logical CPUs.
> 
> Yes you are right, it only calculates XOR on writes with RAID5. 
> But then I am puzzled what all these CPU cycles are used for.
> Also many cycles are used on mirrored raid types. Why?
> Maybe some is because of LVM? I have been puzzled for a long time why
> ordinary RAID without LVM need to use so much CPU. Maybe a lot of data
> sguffling between buffers? Neil?

What is your evidence that RAID1 uses lots of CPU?

I would expect it to use very little, but I've been wrong before.

NeilBrown
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-raid" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

  parent reply	other threads:[~2011-01-31 20:42 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 37+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2011-01-29 22:48 Performance question, RAID5 Mathias Burén
2011-01-29 22:53 ` Roman Mamedov
2011-01-29 23:44   ` Mathias Burén
2011-01-29 23:57     ` Roman Mamedov
2011-01-30  0:15       ` Stan Hoeppner
2011-01-30  0:33         ` Mathias Burén
2011-01-30  0:27       ` Mathias Burén
2011-01-30  1:52     ` Keld Jørn Simonsen
2011-01-30  1:54       ` Mathias Burén
2011-01-30  5:56         ` Keld Jørn Simonsen
2011-01-30 12:12           ` Mathias Burén
2011-01-30 19:44             ` Stan Hoeppner
2011-01-30 19:46               ` Mathias Burén
2011-02-01 11:37             ` John Robinson
2011-02-01 13:53               ` Roberto Spadim
2011-02-01 14:02               ` Mathias Burén
2011-02-01 14:32                 ` Roberto Spadim
2011-01-29 23:26 ` CoolCold
2011-01-30  0:18   ` Mathias Burén
2011-01-30  4:44     ` Roman Mamedov
2011-01-30 12:09       ` Mathias Burén
2011-01-30 12:15         ` Roman Mamedov
2011-01-30 19:41           ` Mathias Burén
2011-01-30 19:54             ` Roman Mamedov
2011-01-30 19:58               ` Mathias Burén
2011-01-30 20:03             ` Stan Hoeppner
2011-01-30 21:43               ` Mathias Burén
2011-01-31  3:39                 ` Stan Hoeppner
2011-01-31  3:54                   ` Roberto Spadim
2011-01-31  8:52                 ` Keld Jørn Simonsen
2011-01-31  9:37                   ` Mathias Burén
2011-01-31 13:11                     ` Keld Jørn Simonsen
2011-01-31 14:43                       ` Roberto Spadim
2011-01-31 18:44                         ` Keld Jørn Simonsen
2011-01-31 20:42                       ` NeilBrown [this message]
2011-01-31 21:41                         ` Keld Jørn Simonsen
2011-01-31 21:43                           ` Roberto Spadim

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=20110201074257.3c771181@notabene.brown \
    --to=neilb@suse.de \
    --cc=coolthecold@gmail.com \
    --cc=keld@keldix.com \
    --cc=linux-raid@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mathias.buren@gmail.com \
    --cc=rm@romanrm.ru \
    --cc=stan@hardwarefreak.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).