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.
next prev parent 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).