From: Bill Davidsen <davidsen@tmr.com>
To: Linux Raid List <linux-raid@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: calculating optimal chunk size for Linux software-RAID
Date: Sat, 08 Mar 2014 17:03:16 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <531B93A4.7010708@tmr.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <531AACA1.6000606@hardwarefreak.com>
Stan Hoeppner wrote:
> On 3/7/2014 9:15 PM, Martin T wrote:
>> Stan,
>>
>> ok, I see. However, are there utilities out there which help one to
>> analyze how applications on a server use the file-system over the time
>> and help to make an educated decision regarding the chunk size?
>
> My apologies. You're a complete novice and I'm leading you down the
> textbook storage architectural design path. Let's short circuit that as
> I don't have the time.
>
> As you're starting from zero, let me give you what works best with 99%
> of workloads. Use a chunk size of 32KB or 64KB. Such a chunk will work
> extremely well with any singular or mixed workloads, on parity and
> non-parity RAID. The only workload that should have a significantly
> larger chunk than this is a purely streaming allocation workload of
> large files.
>
> If you want a more technical explanation, you can read all of my
> relevant posts in the linux-raid or XFS archives, as I've explained this
> hundreds of times in great detail. Or you can wait a few months to read
> the kernel documentation I'm working on, which will teach the reader the
> formal storage stack design process, soup to nuts. I wish it was
> already finished, as I could simply paste the link for you, which,
> coincidentally, is the exact reason I'm writing it. :)
>
>
Thank you Stan, hopefully you cover typical mixed use cases. I split my physical
drives with partitions and built large chunk arrays on on set and small on the
other, to cover my use cases of editing large video files and compiling kernels
and large apps.
The ext4 extended options stride= and stripe-width= can produce improvements in
performance, particularly when writing a large file on an array with a small
chunk size. My limited tests showed this helped more with raid6 than raid5.
Since you're writing a document you can include that or not as it pleases you.
--
Bill Davidsen <davidsen@tmr.com>
"We have more to fear from the bungling of the incompetent than from
the machinations of the wicked." - from Slashdot
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2014-03-08 22:03 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2014-03-07 2:06 calculating optimal chunk size for Linux software-RAID Martin T
2014-03-07 23:58 ` Stan Hoeppner
2014-03-08 3:15 ` Martin T
2014-03-08 5:37 ` Stan Hoeppner
2014-03-08 22:03 ` Bill Davidsen [this message]
2014-03-12 15:21 ` Martin T
2014-03-13 10:15 ` 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=531B93A4.7010708@tmr.com \
--to=davidsen@tmr.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).