linux-raid.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Oliver Martin <oliver.martin@student.tuwien.ac.at>
To: Janek Kozicki <janek_listy@wp.pl>
Cc: linux-raid@vger.kernel.org
Subject: LVM performance (was: Re: RAID5 to RAID6 reshape?)
Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2008 20:41:19 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <47BB30DF.1080006@student.tuwien.ac.at> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20080218154203.6e2d1483@szpak>

Janek Kozicki schrieb:
> hold on. This might be related to raid chunk positioning with respect
> to LVM chunk positioning. If they interfere there indeed may be some
> performance drop. Best to make sure that those chunks are aligned together.

Interesting. I'm seeing a 20% performance drop too, with default RAID 
and LVM chunk sizes of 64K and 4M, respectively. Since 64K divides 4M 
evenly, I'd think there shouldn't be such a big performance penalty.
It's not like I care that much, I only have 100 Mbps ethernet anyway. 
I'm just wondering...

$ hdparm -t /dev/md0

/dev/md0:
  Timing buffered disk reads:  148 MB in  3.01 seconds =  49.13 MB/sec

$ hdparm -t /dev/dm-0

/dev/dm-0:
  Timing buffered disk reads:  116 MB in  3.04 seconds =  38.20 MB/sec

dm doesn't do anything fancy to justify the drop (encryption etc). In 
fact, it doesn't do much at all yet - I intend to use it to join 
multiple arrays in the future when I have drives of different sizes, but 
right now, I only have 500GB drives. So it's just one PV in one VG in 
one LV.

Here's some more info:

$ mdadm -D /dev/md0
/dev/md0:
         Version : 00.90.03
   Creation Time : Sat Nov 24 12:15:48 2007
      Raid Level : raid5
      Array Size : 976767872 (931.52 GiB 1000.21 GB)
   Used Dev Size : 488383936 (465.76 GiB 500.11 GB)
    Raid Devices : 3
   Total Devices : 3
Preferred Minor : 0
     Persistence : Superblock is persistent

     Update Time : Tue Feb 19 01:18:26 2008
           State : clean
  Active Devices : 3
Working Devices : 3
  Failed Devices : 0
   Spare Devices : 0

          Layout : left-symmetric
      Chunk Size : 64K

            UUID : d41fe8a6:84b0f97a:8ac8b21a:819833c6 (local to host 
quassel)
          Events : 0.330016

     Number   Major   Minor   RaidDevice State
        0       8       17        0      active sync   /dev/sdb1
        1       8       33        1      active sync   /dev/sdc1
        2       8       81        2      active sync   /dev/sdf1

$ pvdisplay
   --- Physical volume ---
   PV Name               /dev/md0
   VG Name               raid
   PV Size               931,52 GB / not usable 2,69 MB
   Allocatable           yes (but full)
   PE Size (KByte)       4096
   Total PE              238468
   Free PE               0
   Allocated PE          238468
   PV UUID               KadH5k-9Cie-dn5Y-eNow-g4It-lfuI-XqNIet

$ vgdisplay
   --- Volume group ---
   VG Name               raid
   System ID
   Format                lvm2
   Metadata Areas        1
   Metadata Sequence No  4
   VG Access             read/write
   VG Status             resizable
   MAX LV                0
   Cur LV                1
   Open LV               1
   Max PV                0
   Cur PV                1
   Act PV                1
   VG Size               931,52 GB
   PE Size               4,00 MB
   Total PE              238468
   Alloc PE / Size       238468 / 931,52 GB
   Free  PE / Size       0 / 0
   VG UUID               AW9yaV-B3EM-pRLN-RTIK-LEOd-bfae-3Vx3BC

$ lvdisplay
   --- Logical volume ---
   LV Name                /dev/raid/raid
   VG Name                raid
   LV UUID                eWIRs8-SFyv-lnix-Gk72-Lu9E-Ku7j-iMIv92
   LV Write Access        read/write
   LV Status              available
   # open                 1
   LV Size                931,52 GB
   Current LE             238468
   Segments               1
   Allocation             inherit
   Read ahead sectors     auto
   - currently set to     256
   Block device           253:0

-- 
Oliver

  reply	other threads:[~2008-02-19 19:41 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 42+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2008-02-17  3:58 RAID5 to RAID6 reshape? Beolach
2008-02-17 11:50 ` Peter Grandi
2008-02-17 14:45   ` Conway S. Smith
2008-02-18  5:26     ` Janek Kozicki
2008-02-18 12:38       ` Beolach
2008-02-18 14:42         ` Janek Kozicki
2008-02-19 19:41           ` Oliver Martin [this message]
2008-02-19 19:52             ` LVM performance (was: Re: RAID5 to RAID6 reshape?) Jon Nelson
2008-02-19 20:00               ` Iustin Pop
2008-02-19 23:19             ` LVM performance Peter Rabbitson
2008-02-20 12:19             ` LVM performance (was: Re: RAID5 to RAID6 reshape?) Peter Grandi
2008-02-22 13:41               ` LVM performance Oliver Martin
2008-03-07  8:14                 ` Peter Grandi
2008-03-09 19:56                   ` Oliver Martin
2008-03-09 21:13                     ` Michael Guntsche
2008-03-09 23:27                       ` Oliver Martin
2008-03-09 23:53                         ` Michael Guntsche
2008-03-10  8:54                           ` Oliver Martin
2008-03-10 21:04                             ` Peter Grandi
2008-03-12 14:03                               ` Michael Guntsche
2008-03-12 19:54                                 ` Peter Grandi
2008-03-12 20:11                                   ` Guntsche Michael
2008-03-10  0:32                         ` Richard Scobie
2008-03-10  0:53                           ` Michael Guntsche
2008-03-10  0:59                             ` Richard Scobie
2008-03-10  1:21                               ` Michael Guntsche
2008-02-18 19:05     ` RAID5 to RAID6 reshape? Peter Grandi
2008-02-20  6:39       ` Alexander Kühn
2008-02-22  8:13         ` Peter Grandi
2008-02-23 20:40           ` Nagilum
2008-02-25  0:10             ` Peter Grandi
2008-02-25 16:31               ` Nagilum
2008-02-17 13:31 ` Janek Kozicki
2008-02-17 16:18   ` Conway S. Smith
2008-02-18  3:48     ` Neil Brown
2008-02-17 22:40   ` Mark Hahn
2008-02-17 23:54     ` Janek Kozicki
2008-02-18 12:46     ` Andre Noll
2008-02-18 18:23       ` Mark Hahn
2008-02-17 14:06 ` Janek Kozicki
2008-02-17 23:54   ` cat
2008-02-18  3:43 ` 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=47BB30DF.1080006@student.tuwien.ac.at \
    --to=oliver.martin@student.tuwien.ac.at \
    --cc=janek_listy@wp.pl \
    --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).