linux-raid.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Bill Davidsen <davidsen@tmr.com>
To: Peter Rabbitson <rabbit+list@rabbit.us>
Cc: Michael Guntsche <mike@it-loops.com>,
	Maurice Hilarius <maurice@harddata.com>,
	linux-raid@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Severe slowdown with LVM on RAID, alignment problem?
Date: Sat, 01 Mar 2008 15:45:58 -0500	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <47C9C086.4020805@tmr.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <47C7E086.5080203@rabbit.us>

Peter Rabbitson wrote:
> Michael Guntsche wrote:
>>
>> Is it possible that my computer is just too slow to get good read 
>> results?
> unlikely
>
>> While reading is a little bit faster it's nowhere near the speed I 
>> get on
>> md0 itself.
>>
>
> I would guess that you did not set the correct read-ahead values for 
> the LV. If you do not specify anything it will default to 128k (256 
> sectors), which is terribly small for sequential reads. On the 
> contrary the MD device will do some clever calculations and set its 
> read-ahead correctly depending on the raid level and the number of 
> disks. Do:
>
> blockdev --setra 65536 <your lv device>
>
> and run the tests again. You are almost certainly going to get the 
> results you are after.

I will just comment that really large readahead values may cause 
significant memory usage and transfer of unused data. My observations 
and some posts indicate that very large readahead and/or chunk size may 
reduce random access performance. I believe you said you had 512MB RAM, 
that may be a factor as well.

Also, blockdev will allow you to diddle readahead on the device, 
/dev/sdX, the array /dev/mdX, and the lv /dev/mapper/NAME. The 
interaction of these, and the performance results of having the same 
exact amount of readhead memory used in different way is a fine topic 
for a thesis, conference paper, magazine article, or nightmare.

Unless you are planning to use this machine mainly for running 
benchmarks, I would tune it for your actual load and a bit of worst case 
avoidance.

-- 
Bill Davidsen <davidsen@tmr.com>
  "Woe unto the statesman who makes war without a reason that will still
  be valid when the war is over..." Otto von Bismark 



  parent reply	other threads:[~2008-03-01 20:45 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2008-02-29  8:12 Severe slowdown with LVM on RAID, alignment problem? Michael Guntsche
2008-02-29 10:37 ` Peter Rabbitson
2008-02-29 10:45   ` Michael Guntsche
2008-03-01 20:45   ` Bill Davidsen [this message]
2008-03-01 21:26     ` Michael Guntsche
2008-03-02 20:14       ` Bill Davidsen
2008-03-04 19:52         ` Severe slowdown with LVM on RAID, alignment problem? - Autodetect? Janek Kozicki
     [not found] <47C75436.9010301@harddata.com>
2008-02-29  7:37 ` Severe slowdown with LVM on RAID, alignment problem? Michael Guntsche
  -- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2008-02-29  0:05 Michael Guntsche

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=47C9C086.4020805@tmr.com \
    --to=davidsen@tmr.com \
    --cc=linux-raid@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=maurice@harddata.com \
    --cc=mike@it-loops.com \
    --cc=rabbit+list@rabbit.us \
    /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).