linux-raid.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Steve Bergman <sbergman27@gmail.com>
To: linux-raid@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Is this expected RAID10 performance?
Date: Thu, 6 Jun 2013 18:52:03 -0500	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAO9HMNH4eFyshhhohw0wQ13j98BTRELTiWF9uDLp3vmFsOEfwQ@mail.gmail.com> (raw)

I have a Dell T310 server set up with 4 Seagate ST2000NM0011 2TB
drives connected to the 4 onboard SATA (3Gbit/s) ports of the
motherboard. Each drive is capable of doing sequential writes at
151MB/s and sequential reads at 204MB/s according to bonnie++. I've
done an installation of Scientific Linux 6.4 (RHEL 6.4) and let the
installer set up the RAID10 and logical volumes. What I got was a
RAID10 device with a 512K chunk size, and ext4 extended options of
stride=128 & stripe-width=256, with a filesystem block size of 4k. All
of this seems correct to me.

But when I run bonnie++ on the array (with ext4 mounted
data=writeback,nobarrier)  I get a sequential write speed of only
160MB/s, and a sequential read speed of only 267MB/s. I've verified
that the drives' write caches are enabled.

"sar -d" shows all 4 drives in operation, writing 80MB/s during the
sequential write phase, which agrees with the 160MB/s I'm seeing for
the whole array. (I haven't monitored the read test with sar.)

Is this about what I should expect? I would have expected both read
and write speeds to be higher. As it stands, writes are barely any
faster than for a single drive. And reads are only ~30% faster.

Thanks for any info,
Steve Bergman

             reply	other threads:[~2013-06-06 23:52 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 32+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2013-06-06 23:52 Steve Bergman [this message]
2013-06-07  3:25 ` Is this expected RAID10 performance? Stan Hoeppner
2013-06-07  7:51 ` Roger Heflin
2013-06-07  8:07   ` Alexander Zvyagin
2013-06-07 10:44     ` Steve Bergman
2013-06-07 10:52       ` Roman Mamedov
2013-06-07 11:25         ` Steve Bergman
2013-06-07 13:18           ` Stan Hoeppner
2013-06-07 13:54             ` Steve Bergman
2013-06-07 21:43               ` Bill Davidsen
2013-06-07 23:33               ` Stan Hoeppner
2013-06-07 12:39       ` Stan Hoeppner
2013-06-07 12:59         ` Steve Bergman
2013-06-07 20:51           ` Stan Hoeppner
2013-06-08 18:23 ` keld
  -- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2013-06-08 19:56 Steve Bergman
2013-06-09  3:08 ` Stan Hoeppner
2013-06-09 12:09 ` Ric Wheeler
2013-06-09 20:06   ` Steve Bergman
2013-06-09 21:40     ` Ric Wheeler
2013-06-09 23:08       ` Steve Bergman
2013-06-10  8:35         ` Stan Hoeppner
2013-06-10  0:11       ` Joe Landman
2013-06-09 22:05     ` Eric Sandeen
2013-06-09 23:34       ` Steve Bergman
2013-06-10  0:02         ` Eric Sandeen
2013-06-10  2:37           ` Steve Bergman
2013-06-10 10:00             ` Stan Hoeppner
2013-06-10  7:19           ` David Brown
2013-06-10  0:05     ` Joe Landman
2013-06-09 23:53 Steve Bergman
2013-06-10  9:23 ` 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=CAO9HMNH4eFyshhhohw0wQ13j98BTRELTiWF9uDLp3vmFsOEfwQ@mail.gmail.com \
    --to=sbergman27@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).