From: Bill Davidsen <davidsen@tmr.com>
To: Neil Brown <neilb@suse.de>
Cc: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@gmail.com>,
Roger Lucas <roger@planbit.co.uk>,
linux-raid@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Odd (slow) RAID performance
Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2006 12:44:45 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <457EEA8D.1080103@tmr.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <17785.5135.749830.180388@cse.unsw.edu.au>
Neil Brown wrote:
> On Friday December 8, neilb@suse.de wrote:
>
>> I have measured very slow write throughput for raid5 as well, though
>> 2.6.18 does seem to have the same problem. I'll double check and do a
>> git bisect and see what I can come up with.
>>
>
> Correction... it isn't 2.6.18 that fixes the problem. It is compiling
> without LOCKDEP or PROVE_LOCKING. I remove those and suddenly a
> 3 drive raid5 is faster than a single drive rather than much slower.
>
> Bill: Do you have LOCKDEP or PROVE_LOCKING enabled in your .config ??
YES and NO respectively. I did try increasing the stripe_cache_size and
got better but not anywhere near max performance, perhaps the
PROVE_LOCKING is still at fault, although performance of RAID-0 is as
expected, so I'm dubious. In any case, by pushing the size from 256 to
1024, 4096, and finally 10240 I was able to raise the speed to 82MB/s,
which is right at the edge of what I need. I want to read the doc on
stripe_cache_size before going huge, if that's K 10MB is a LOT of cache
when 256 works perfectly in RAID-0.
I noted that the performance really was bad using 2k write, before
increasing the stripe_cache, I will repeat that after doing some other
"real work" things.
Any additional input appreciated, I would expect the speed to be (Ndisk
- 1)*SingleDiskSpeed without a huge buffer, so the fact that it isn't
makes me suspect there's unintended serialization or buffering, even
when not need (and NOT wanted).
Thanks for the feedback, I'm updating the files as I type.
http://www.tmr.com/~davidsen/RAID_speed
http://www.tmr.com/~davidsen/FC6-config
--
bill davidsen <davidsen@tmr.com>
CTO TMR Associates, Inc
Doing interesting things with small computers since 1979
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2006-12-12 17:44 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 20+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2006-11-30 14:13 Odd (slow) RAID performance Bill Davidsen
2006-11-30 14:31 ` Roger Lucas
2006-11-30 15:30 ` Bill Davidsen
2006-11-30 15:32 ` Roger Lucas
2006-11-30 21:09 ` Bill Davidsen
2006-12-01 9:24 ` Roger Lucas
2006-12-02 5:27 ` Bill Davidsen
2006-12-05 1:33 ` Dan Williams
2006-12-07 15:51 ` Bill Davidsen
2006-12-08 1:15 ` Corey Hickey
2006-12-08 8:21 ` Gabor Gombas
2006-12-08 6:01 ` Neil Brown
2006-12-08 7:28 ` Neil Brown
2006-12-09 20:20 ` Bill Davidsen
2006-12-12 17:44 ` Bill Davidsen [this message]
2006-12-12 18:48 ` Raz Ben-Jehuda(caro)
2006-12-12 21:51 ` Bill Davidsen
2006-12-13 17:44 ` Mark Hahn
2006-12-20 4:05 ` Bill Davidsen
2006-12-09 20:16 ` Bill Davidsen
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=457EEA8D.1080103@tmr.com \
--to=davidsen@tmr.com \
--cc=dan.j.williams@gmail.com \
--cc=linux-raid@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=neilb@suse.de \
--cc=roger@planbit.co.uk \
/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).