From: Aaron Sowry <aaron@cendio.se>
To: linux-raid@vger.kernel.org
Subject: RAID10 Performance
Date: Wed, 02 Mar 2011 10:04:19 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4D6E0813.1070903@cendio.se> (raw)
Hello,
I have been testing different RAID configurations on a 2-disk setup, and
have a couple of questions regarding performance. The information I have
found online so far seems to contradict itself fairly regularly so I was
hoping for a more coherent answer :)
1) As I understand it, a RAID10 'near' configuration using two disks is
essentially equivalent to a RAID1 configuration. Is this correct?
2) Does md RAID1 support 'striped' reads? If not, is RAID1 read
performance in any way related to the number of disks in the array?
3) From what I have read so far, a RAID10 'far' configuration on 2 disks
provides increased read performance over an equivalent 'near'
configuration, however I am struggling to understand exactly why. I
understand the difference between the 'near' and 'far' configurations,
but not *why* this should provide any speed increases. What am I missing?
4) I have performed a(n admittedly fairly basic) benchmark on the same
system under two different configurations - RAID10,n2 and RAID10,f2
using tiobench with default settings. In short, the results showed a
significant speed increase for single-threaded sequential reads (83Mb/s
vs 166MB/s), some increase for single-threaded random reads (1.85Mb/s vs
2.25Mb/s), but a decrease for every other metric, including
multi-threaded sequential and random reads. I was expecting write
performance to decrease under RAID10,f2 compared to RAID10,n2, but am
slightly confused about the multi-threaded read performance. Is it my
expectations or my testing that needs to be reviewed?
Cheers,
Aaron
next reply other threads:[~2011-03-02 9:04 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 20+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2011-03-02 9:04 Aaron Sowry [this message]
2011-03-02 9:24 ` RAID10 Performance Robin Hill
2011-03-02 10:14 ` Keld Jørn Simonsen
2011-03-02 14:42 ` Mark Knecht
2011-03-02 14:47 ` Mathias Burén
2011-03-02 15:02 ` Mario 'BitKoenig' Holbe
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2012-07-26 14:16 Adam Goryachev
2012-07-27 7:07 ` Stan Hoeppner
2012-07-27 13:02 ` Adam Goryachev
2012-07-27 18:29 ` Stan Hoeppner
2012-07-28 6:36 ` Adam Goryachev
2012-07-28 15:33 ` Stan Hoeppner
2012-08-08 3:49 ` Adam Goryachev
2012-08-08 16:59 ` Stan Hoeppner
2012-08-08 17:14 ` Roberto Spadim
2012-08-09 1:00 ` Adam Goryachev
2012-08-09 22:37 ` Stan Hoeppner
2012-07-27 12:05 ` Phil Turmel
2011-03-02 8:50 Aaron Sowry
2011-03-02 11:16 ` NeilBrown
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=4D6E0813.1070903@cendio.se \
--to=aaron@cendio.se \
--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).