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
next prev 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).