From: Stan Hoeppner <stan@hardwarefreak.com>
To: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com>
Cc: linux-raid@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Software RAID checksum performance on 24 disks not even close to kernel reported
Date: Wed, 06 Jun 2012 23:06:10 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4FD028B2.1050306@hardwarefreak.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAA9_cmcANJjd8gfagWw5vENABh+n13xFnk7OF-ZzxecfxU719w@mail.gmail.com>
On 6/6/2012 11:09 AM, Dan Williams wrote:
> Hardware raid ultimately does the same shuffling, outside of nvram an
> advantage it has is that parity data does not traverse the bus...
Are you referring to the host data bus(s)? I.e. HT/QPI and PCIe?
With a 24 disk array, a full stripe write is only 1/12th parity data,
less than 10%. And the buses (point to point actually) of 24 drive
caliber systems will usually start at one way B/W of 4GB/s for PCIe 2.0
x8 and with one way B/W from the PCIe controller to the CPU starting at
10.4GB/s for AMD HT 3.0 systems. PCIe x8 is plenty to handle a 24 drive
md RAID 6, using 7.2K SATA drives anyway.
What is a bigger issue, and may actually be what you were referring to,
is read-modify-write B/W, which will incur a full stripe read and write.
For RMW heavy workloads, this is significant. HBA RAID does have a big
advantage here, compared to one's md array possessing the aggregate
performance to saturate the PCIe bus.
--
Stan
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2012-06-07 4:06 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 38+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2012-06-04 23:14 Software RAID checksum performance on 24 disks not even close to kernel reported Ole Tange
2012-06-05 1:26 ` Joe Landman
2012-06-05 3:36 ` Igor M Podlesny
2012-06-05 7:47 ` Ole Tange
2012-06-05 11:25 ` Peter Grandi
2012-06-05 20:57 ` Ole Tange
2012-06-06 17:37 ` Peter Grandi
2012-06-05 14:15 ` Stan Hoeppner
2012-06-05 20:45 ` Ole Tange
2012-06-05 3:39 ` Igor M Podlesny
2012-06-05 7:47 ` Ole Tange
2012-06-05 11:29 ` Igor M Podlesny
2012-06-05 13:09 ` Peter Grandi
2012-06-05 21:17 ` Ole Tange
2012-06-06 1:38 ` Stan Hoeppner
2012-06-05 18:44 ` Ole Tange
2012-06-06 1:40 ` Brad Campbell
2012-06-06 3:48 ` Marcus Sorensen
2012-06-06 11:21 ` Ole Tange
2012-06-06 11:17 ` Ole Tange
2012-06-06 12:58 ` Brad Campbell
2012-06-06 14:11 ` Ole Tange
2012-06-06 16:05 ` Igor M Podlesny
2012-06-06 19:51 ` Ole Tange
2012-06-06 22:21 ` Igor M Podlesny
2012-06-06 22:53 ` Peter Grandi
2012-06-07 3:41 ` Igor M Podlesny
2012-06-07 4:59 ` Stan Hoeppner
2012-06-07 5:22 ` Igor M Podlesny
2012-06-07 9:03 ` Stan Hoeppner
2012-06-07 9:22 ` Igor M Podlesny
2012-06-06 16:09 ` Dan Williams
2012-06-06 19:19 ` Ole Tange
2012-06-06 19:24 ` Dan Williams
2012-06-06 19:26 ` Ole Tange
2012-06-07 4:06 ` Stan Hoeppner [this message]
2012-06-07 14:40 ` Joe Landman
2012-06-08 1:23 ` Stan Hoeppner
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=4FD028B2.1050306@hardwarefreak.com \
--to=stan@hardwarefreak.com \
--cc=dan.j.williams@intel.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).