linux-raid.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: John Robinson <john.robinson@anonymous.org.uk>
To: Johannes Segitz <johannes.segitz@gmail.com>
Cc: linux-raid@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Performance of a software raid 5
Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2009 00:46:54 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <49ED096E.1000002@anonymous.org.uk> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <a5cd9eed0904201012o67503049laa50f4cb5b8d88de@mail.gmail.com>

On 20/04/2009 18:12, Johannes Segitz wrote:
> i'm currently trying to create a raid 5 out of three 1 TB hdd. For now
> there is one hdd missing so i get 3 TB of usable space.
[...]
> Stride and stripe-width will be correct when i add another two hdd of
> which one will carry data. Can someone please give me a hint why i
> could get such bad performance especially while reading?

I would have thought it's because you're running in degraded mode and 
one in 3 sectors is having to be regenerated from the parity. It still 
seems a bit slow, though.

Here I have a 3-disc RAID-5 of similar drives:

# hdparm -i /dev/sda
/dev/sda:

  Model=SAMSUNG HD103UJ                         , FwRev=1AA01112, 
SerialNo=S1PVJ1CQ602164
  Config={ Fixed }
  RawCHS=16383/16/63, TrkSize=34902, SectSize=554, ECCbytes=4
  BuffType=DualPortCache, BuffSize=32767kB, MaxMultSect=16, MultSect=?0?
  CurCHS=16383/16/63, CurSects=16514064, LBA=yes, LBAsects=268435455
  IORDY=on/off, tPIO={min:120,w/IORDY:120}, tDMA={min:120,rec:120}
  PIO modes:  pio0 pio1 pio2 pio3 pio4
  DMA modes:  mdma0 mdma1 mdma2
  UDMA modes: udma0 udma1 udma2
  AdvancedPM=yes: disabled (255) WriteCache=enabled
  Drive conforms to: unknown:  ATA/ATAPI-3 ATA/ATAPI-4 ATA/ATAPI-5 
ATA/ATAPI-6 ATA/ATAPI-7

# mdadm --detail /dev/md1
/dev/md1:
         Version : 00.90.03
   Creation Time : Mon Jul 28 15:49:09 2008
      Raid Level : raid5
      Array Size : 1953310720 (1862.82 GiB 2000.19 GB)
   Used Dev Size : 976655360 (931.41 GiB 1000.10 GB)
    Raid Devices : 3
   Total Devices : 3
Preferred Minor : 1
     Persistence : Superblock is persistent

   Intent Bitmap : Internal

     Update Time : Tue Apr 21 00:35:26 2009
           State : active
  Active Devices : 3
Working Devices : 3
  Failed Devices : 0
   Spare Devices : 0

          Layout : left-symmetric
      Chunk Size : 256K

            UUID : d8c57a89:166ee722:23adec48:1574b5fc
          Events : 0.6134

     Number   Major   Minor   RaidDevice State
        0       8        2        0      active sync   /dev/sda2
        1       8       18        1      active sync   /dev/sdb2
        2       8       34        2      active sync   /dev/sdc2

It has LVM and an ext3 filesystem on it. Here are my timings:

# time dd if=/dev/zero of=big_file bs=4096 count=2560000
2560000+0 records in
2560000+0 records out
10485760000 bytes (10 GB) copied, 264.448 seconds, 39.7 MB/s

real    4m25.740s
user    0m2.272s
sys     0m34.470s

# time dd if=big_file of=/dev/null bs=4096 count=2560000
2560000+0 records in
2560000+0 records out
10485760000 bytes (10 GB) copied, 53.9577 seconds, 194 MB/s

real    0m54.026s
user    0m0.556s
sys     0m4.944s

I'm not quite sure whether I should be disappointed at my writes being 
so slow. Certainly there's a lot of rattling during writing, which 
probably indicates lots of seeks to write ext3's journal. But reads are 
roughly what I expected, at about three times the single-disc throughput.

Cheers,

John.


  reply	other threads:[~2009-04-20 23:46 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 30+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2009-04-20 17:12 Performance of a software raid 5 Johannes Segitz
2009-04-20 23:46 ` John Robinson [this message]
2009-04-21  0:10   ` Johannes Segitz
2009-04-21  0:52     ` John Robinson
2009-04-21  1:05       ` Johannes Segitz
2009-04-21  1:12         ` John Robinson
2009-04-21  1:19         ` NeilBrown
2009-04-21  2:04           ` Johannes Segitz
2009-04-21  5:46             ` Neil Brown
2009-04-21 12:40               ` Johannes Segitz
2009-04-24 13:49                 ` Johannes Segitz
2009-04-26 17:03               ` Johannes Segitz
2009-04-21 18:56             ` Corey Hickey
2009-04-22 12:29               ` Bill Davidsen
2009-04-22 22:32                 ` Corey Hickey
2009-04-22  9:07           ` Goswin von Brederlow
2009-04-21  0:44   ` Poor write performance with write-intent bitmap? John Robinson
2009-04-21  1:33     ` NeilBrown
2009-04-21  2:13       ` John Robinson
2009-04-21  5:50         ` Neil Brown
2009-04-21 12:05           ` John Robinson
2009-05-22 23:00             ` Redeeman
2009-04-22  9:16         ` Goswin von Brederlow
2009-04-22 12:41           ` John Robinson
2009-04-22 14:02             ` Goswin von Brederlow
2009-04-23  7:48               ` John Robinson
2009-04-22 14:21             ` Andre Noll
2009-04-23  8:04               ` John Robinson
2009-04-23 20:23                 ` Goswin von Brederlow
2009-04-21 16:00       ` 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=49ED096E.1000002@anonymous.org.uk \
    --to=john.robinson@anonymous.org.uk \
    --cc=johannes.segitz@gmail.com \
    --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).