From: Andre Tomt <andre@tomt.net>
To: Matt Tehonica <matt.tehonica@mac.com>
Cc: linux-raid@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Typical RAID5 transfer speeds
Date: Sun, 20 Dec 2009 16:25:56 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4B2E4204.5070608@tomt.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <B26AD6F5-45F6-4CC6-AE63-E4253E60076C@mac.com>
On 19.12.2009 01:37, Matt Tehonica wrote:
> I have a 4 disk RAID5 using a 2048K chunk size and using XFS filesystem.
> Typical file size is about 2GB-5GB. I usually get around 50MB/sec
> transfer speed when writting files to the array. Is this typcial or is
> it below normal? A friend has a 20 disk RAID6 using the same filesystem
> and chunk size and gets around 150MB/sec. Any input on this??
Software RAID performance should not be that slow, unless the drives are
connected to controller on 32bit/33Mhz PCI slots of course. There is a
few things to keep in mind though.
Controllers and bus topology of the motherboard matters a great deal on
I/O performance, but even on recent (up to around 3 years back, I think)
desktop motherboards you should be able to go very fast when using the
right slots and busses. PCI-Express was the game changer here, but you
should try to get most SATA ports on a slot connected to the north
bridge if you want to go REALLY fast.
Filesystem alignment and stripe size awareness helps quite a bit, and I
guess even more on a machine that is already bus starved (if thats your
problem) as it helps reduce "invisible" I/O - operations spanning
multiple stripes when they could have spanned one, for example, and a
reduction in read-modify-write cycles in general.
A bigger stripe_cache on the array might help, especially if things
aren't aligned/aware, if you got the memory (check /sys/block/<md
dev>/md/stripe_cache_active and _size.)
On a old Intel core 2 duo, with a MD RAID6 set using 128k chunks over 8
1.5TB 7200rpm SATA drives I'm seeing about 600MB/s writes and
700-750MB/s reads with sequential I/O - which is very near the maximum
for the resulting stripe size with those drives. Changing to RAID5 would
probably net me another ~100MB/s as the stripe would span one more drive.
prev parent reply other threads:[~2009-12-20 15:25 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 20+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2009-12-19 0:37 Typical RAID5 transfer speeds Matt Tehonica
2009-12-19 1:05 ` Bernd Schubert
2009-12-19 8:30 ` Thomas Fjellstrom
2009-12-19 9:38 ` Michael Evans
2009-12-19 11:43 ` John Robinson
2009-12-19 19:18 ` Leslie Rhorer
2009-12-21 13:06 ` Goswin von Brederlow
2009-12-19 21:35 ` Roger Heflin
2009-12-20 4:21 ` Michael Evans
2009-12-20 9:55 ` Thomas Fjellstrom
2009-12-20 14:53 ` Andre Tomt
2009-12-20 16:03 ` Thomas Fjellstrom
2009-12-20 18:28 ` Roger Heflin
2009-12-21 1:18 ` Michael Evans
2009-12-21 1:50 ` Richard Scobie
2009-12-21 11:30 ` Asdo
2009-12-21 18:28 ` Richard Scobie
2009-12-20 10:04 ` Erwan MAS
2009-12-20 10:31 ` Keld Jørn Simonsen
2009-12-20 15:25 ` Andre Tomt [this message]
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=4B2E4204.5070608@tomt.net \
--to=andre@tomt.net \
--cc=linux-raid@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=matt.tehonica@mac.com \
/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).