From: Ric Wheeler <ric@emc.com>
To: Mark Hahn <hahn@physics.mcmaster.ca>
Cc: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@gmail.com>, linux-raid@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Accelerating Linux software raid
Date: Sat, 10 Sep 2005 08:58:10 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4322D862.3000300@emc.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0509100033570.29141-100000@coffee.psychology.mcmaster.ca>
Mark Hahn wrote:
>>hardware. I/O processors like the Intel IOP333
>>(http://www.intel.com/design/iio/docs/iop333.htm) contain an xor
>>engine for raid5 and raid6 calculations, but currently the md driver
>>does not fully utilize these resources.
>>
>>
>
>the worst insult in the linux world is "solution in search of a problem".
>that applies here: are you sure that there is a problem? yes, offload
>can be a lovely thing, but it often falls behind the main driver of the
>industry - host cpu performance. unless you're specifically targetting
>a high-IO device with very little CPU power, I think you'll find a lot
>of skepticism about IO coprocessors.
>
>I have a server that can do the raid5 checksum at 8 GB/s, and have no
>reason to ever want more than ~100 MB/s on that machine. do I care
>about "wasting" 1/80th of the machine? not really, even though it's
>a supercomputing cluster node. for fileservers, I mind even less
>wasting CPU using the host for parity, since the cycles aren't going
>to be used for anything else...
>
>
>
I think that the above holds for server applications, but there are lots
of places where you will start to see a need for serious IO capabilities
in low power, multi-core designs. Think of your Tivo starting to store
family photos - you don't want to bolt a server class box under your TV
in order to get some reasonable data protection ;-)
In the Centera group where I work, we have a linux based box that is
used for archival storage. Customers understand why the cost of a box
is related to the number of disks, but the strength of the CPU, memory
subsystem, etc are all more or less thought of as overhead (not to
mention that nasty software stuff that I work on ;-)).
In this kind of environment as well, finding an elegant way to take
advantage of the capabilities of the new system on a chip parts is a win.
Also keep in mind that the Xor done for simple RAID is not the whole
story - think of compression offload, encryption, etc which might also
be able to leverage a well thought out solution.
ric
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2005-09-10 12:58 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2005-09-06 18:24 Accelerating Linux software raid Dan Williams
2005-09-06 21:52 ` Molle Bestefich
2005-09-10 4:51 ` Mark Hahn
2005-09-10 12:58 ` Ric Wheeler [this message]
2005-09-10 15:35 ` Mark Hahn
2005-09-10 19:13 ` Dan Williams
2005-09-11 2:06 ` Ric Wheeler
2005-09-11 2:35 ` Konstantin Olchanski
2005-09-11 12:00 ` Ric Wheeler
2005-09-11 20:19 ` Mark Hahn
2005-09-10 8:35 ` Colonel Hell
2005-09-11 23:14 ` Neil Brown
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=4322D862.3000300@emc.com \
--to=ric@emc.com \
--cc=dan.j.williams@gmail.com \
--cc=hahn@physics.mcmaster.ca \
--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).