From: "J. Ryan Earl" <ryan@dynaconnections.com>
To: Janusz Zamecki <janusz@pipi.ma.cx>, linux-raid@vger.kernel.org
Subject: RE: RAID1 & 2.6.9 performance problem
Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2005 11:32:54 -0600 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <OMEKLMBKKEOEENCKLEIDAEFGCAAA.ryan@dynaconnections.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <41EBD827.80701@pipi.ma.cx>
"Please check this out:
hdparm -t /dev/hdg /dev/hde /dev/md6
/dev/hdg:
Timing buffered disk reads: 184 MB in 3.03 seconds = 60.76 MB/sec
/dev/hde:
Timing buffered disk reads: 184 MB in 3.01 seconds = 61.08 MB/sec
/dev/md6:
Timing buffered disk reads: 184 MB in 3.03 seconds = 60.74 MB/sec
I've expected much better /dev/md6 performance (at least 100MB/s)."
This is perfectly normally, I'm not sure why you'd expect better
performance. You will get 2 parallel sequential reads at around 120MB/sec
assuming you're not bus limited. A single sequential parallel read can be
no faster than the performance of a single RAID1 disk, though latency should
lower significantly. I found that average number of read seeks/sec
increases around 80% in going from a single HD to a RAID1 setup.
Think about it and it should make sense. You have two discs with identical
layouts. How could you possibly increase the speed of a single sequential
read? You can't just read half from one drive, half from the other, you'd
always have heads seeking and it would no longer be a sequential read.
-ryan
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2005-01-18 17:32 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 21+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2005-01-17 15:22 RAID1 & 2.6.9 performance problem Janusz Zamecki
2005-01-17 15:39 ` Gordon Henderson
2005-01-17 15:51 ` Hans Kristian Rosbach
2005-01-17 16:46 ` Peter T. Breuer
2005-01-18 13:18 ` Hans Kristian Rosbach
2005-01-18 13:43 ` Peter T. Breuer
2005-01-17 20:49 ` Janusz Zamecki
2005-01-17 16:24 ` Andrew Walrond
2005-01-17 16:51 ` Is this hdparm -t output correct? (was Re: RAID1 & 2.6.9 performance problem) Andy Smith
2005-01-17 17:04 ` Andrew Walrond
2005-01-17 18:26 ` RAID1 Corruption Markus Gehring
2005-01-17 19:14 ` Paul Clements
2005-01-17 19:35 ` Tony Mantler
2005-01-17 19:42 ` Markus Gehring
2005-01-17 19:21 ` Sven Anders
2005-01-18 17:32 ` J. Ryan Earl [this message]
2005-01-18 17:34 ` RAID1 & 2.6.9 performance problem J. Ryan Earl
2005-01-18 18:41 ` Janusz Zamecki
2005-01-18 19:18 ` J. Ryan Earl
2005-01-18 19:34 ` Janusz Zamecki
2005-01-18 19:12 ` Janusz Zamecki
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=OMEKLMBKKEOEENCKLEIDAEFGCAAA.ryan@dynaconnections.com \
--to=ryan@dynaconnections.com \
--cc=janusz@pipi.ma.cx \
--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).