linux-raid.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
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

             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).