From: Piergiorgio Sartor <piergiorgio.sartor@nexgo.de>
To: linux-raid@vger.kernel.org
Subject: RAID-0/5/6 performances
Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2013 20:24:54 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20131205192454.GA5695@lazy.lzy> (raw)
Hi all,
I've a system, with an LSI 2308 SAS controller
and 5 2.5" HDD attached.
Each HDD can do around 100MB/sec read/write.
This was tested will all HDDs in parallel, to
make sure the controller can sustain them.
Single disk has same performance.
I was testing RAID 0/5/6 perfomances and I found
something I could not clearly understand.
The test was done with "dd", I wanted to know the
maximum possible performance.
Specifically, for reading:
dd if=/dev/md127 of=/dev/null bs=4k
For writing:
dd if=/dev/zero of=/dev/md127 bs=4k conv=fdatasync
Note than large block size did not change the
results. I guess the page size is quite optimal.
I tested each RAID with 4 and 5 HDDs, with chunk
size of 512k, 64k and 16k.
The "stripe_cache_size" was set to the max 32768.
The results were observed with "iostat -k 5",
taking care to consider variations and ramp up.
The table, with MB/sec, the number are the HDDs
the "r" is read, "w" is write:
chunk RAID 4r 4w 5r 5w
512k 0 400 400 500 500
512k 5 260 300 360 400
512k 6 55 180 100 290
64k 0 400 400 440 500
64k 5 150 300 160 400
64k 6 100 180 140 290
16k 0 380 400 350 500
16k 5 100 300 130 390
16k 6 80 180 100 290
Now, RAID-0/5 seem to perform as expected,
depending on the number of HDDs. Expecially
with large chunk size.
Write performances are not a problem, even
if those are CPU intensive, with parity RAID.
RAID-0/5 do not react well with small chunk.
RAID-6, on the other hand, seems to have an
idea of its own.
First of all, it does not seem to respect
proportionality. I would think a 4 HDDs
RAID-6 should more or less read as fast as
2 HDDs. I can understand some loss, due to
the parity skip, but not so much. In fact it
improves with smaller chunk.
With 5 HDDs, I would expect something better
than 100MB/sec.
Any idea on this? Am I doing something wrong?
Some suggestion on tuning something in order
to try to improve RAID-6?
Thanks,
bye,
--
piergiorgio
next reply other threads:[~2013-12-05 19:24 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2013-12-05 19:24 Piergiorgio Sartor [this message]
2013-12-05 21:57 ` RAID-0/5/6 performances NeilBrown
2013-12-05 22:29 ` Piergiorgio Sartor
2013-12-06 22:47 ` Piergiorgio Sartor
2013-12-06 9:24 ` Stan Hoeppner
2013-12-06 18:13 ` Piergiorgio Sartor
2013-12-06 23:29 ` Stan Hoeppner
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=20131205192454.GA5695@lazy.lzy \
--to=piergiorgio.sartor@nexgo.de \
--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).