linux-raid.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
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


  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).