From: Justin Piszcz <jpiszcz@lucidpixels.com>
To: linux-ide-arrays@lists.math.uh.edu, xfs@oss.sgi.com
Cc: linux-raid@vger.kernel.org, linux@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Software RAID5 Horrible Write Speed On 3ware Controller!!
Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2007 06:23:25 -0400 (EDT) [thread overview]
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0707180614480.7659@p34.internal.lan> (raw)
I recently got a chance to test SW RAID5 using 750GB disks (10) in a RAID5
on a 3ware card, model no: 9550SXU-12
The bottom line is the controller is doing some weird caching with writes
on SW RAID5 which makes it not worth using.
Recall, with SW RAID5 using regular SATA cards with (mind you) 10 raptors:
write: 464MB/s
read: 627MB/s
Yes, these drives are different, 7200RPM 750GB drives, but write should
not be 50-102MB/s as shown below.
First, lets test RAW performance of these 10 drives:
Create RAID 0 with 10 750GB Drives:
# mdadm /dev/md0 --create --level=0 -n 10
/dev/sd[bcdefghjik]1
mdadm: array /dev/md0 started.
--> XFS: (xfs default options, no optimizations)
# dd if=/dev/zero of=10gb bs=1M count=10240
10737418240 bytes (11 GB) copied, 22.459 seconds, 478 MB/s
# dd if=10gb of=/dev/zero bs=1M count=10240
10737418240 bytes (11 GB) copied, 28.7843 seconds, 373 MB/s
--> XFS: (xfs default options, enabled md-raid read optimizations)
# dd if=/dev/zero of=10gb bs=1M count=10240
10737418240 bytes (11 GB) copied, 22.9623 seconds, 468 MB/s
# dd if=10gb of=/dev/zero bs=1M count=10240
10737418240 bytes (11 GB) copied, 17.7328 seconds, 606 MB/s
Software RAID 5 on a real HW raid controller over 10 750GB disks JBOD:
UltraDense-AS-3ware-R5-9-disks,16G,50676,89,96019,34,46379,9,60267,99,501098,56,248.5,0,16:100000:16/64,240,3,21959,84,1109,10,286,4,22923,91,544,6
UltraDense-AS-3ware-R5-9-disks,16G,49983,88,96902,37,47951,10,59002,99,529121,60,210.3,0,16:100000:16/64,250,3,25506,98,1163,10,268,3,18003,71,772,8
UltraDense-AS-3ware-R5-9-disks,16G,49811,87,95759,35,48214,10,60153,99,538559,61,276.8,0,16:100000:16/64,233,3,25514,97,1100,9,279,3,21398,84,839,9
Write seems significantly impacted, where read is fine, the HW RAID
controller cache must be doing something strange:
--> XFS SW RAID 5: (xfs noatime only, enabled md-raid read optimizations)
# dd if=/dev/zero of=10gb bs=1M count=10240
10737418240 bytes (11 GB) copied, 105.178 seconds, 102 MB/s
# dd if=10gb of=/dev/zero bs=1M count=10240
10737418240 bytes (11 GB) copied, 17.4893 seconds, 614 MB/s
-----
I am sure one of your questions is, well, why use SW RAID5 on the
controller? Because SW RAID5 is usually much faster than HW RAID5, at
least in my tests:
Ctl Model Ports Drives Units NotOpt RRate VRate BBU
------------------------------------------------------------------------
c0 9550SXU-12 12 12 3 0 1 4 -
Unit UnitType Status %Cmpl Stripe Size(GB) Cache AVerify IgnECC
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
u0 RAID-1 OK - - 698.481 ON ON OFF
u1 RAID-5 OK - 64K 5587.85 ON OFF OFF
u2 SPARE OK - - 698.629 - OFF -
--> XFS:
# dd if=/dev/zero of=10gb bs=1M count=10240
10737418240 bytes (11 GB) copied, 74.5648 seconds, 144 MB/s
--> JFS:
# dd if=/dev/zero of=10gb bs=1M count=10240
10737418240 bytes (11 GB) copied, 108.631 seconds, 98.8 MB/s
The controller is set to performance, and this is nothing close to
performance.
In RAID0, the controller is ok with the disks JBOD, but I cannot recommend
buying a controller (12,16,24 port) for Linux SW RAID 5.
Its too bad that there are no regular > 4 port SATA PCI-e controllers out
there.
Justin.
next reply other threads:[~2007-07-18 10:23 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 22+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2007-07-18 10:23 Justin Piszcz [this message]
2007-07-18 10:49 ` Software RAID5 Horrible Write Speed On 3ware Controller!! Hannes Dorbath
2007-07-18 16:26 ` Justin Piszcz
2007-07-18 17:18 ` Bryan J. Smith
2007-07-18 10:59 ` Al Boldi
2007-07-18 12:01 ` Justin Piszcz
2007-07-18 11:05 ` Gabor Gombas
2007-07-18 11:19 ` Justin Piszcz
2007-07-18 11:26 ` Hannes Dorbath
2007-07-18 11:32 ` Justin Piszcz
2007-07-18 11:37 ` Hannes Dorbath
2007-07-18 11:38 ` Justin Piszcz
2007-07-18 12:51 ` Robin Hill
2007-07-18 14:26 ` Gabor Gombas
2007-07-18 11:17 ` Giuseppe Ghibò
2007-07-18 11:20 ` Justin Piszcz
2007-07-18 17:57 ` Bryan J. Smith
2007-07-18 11:26 ` Sander
2007-07-18 11:35 ` Justin Piszcz
2007-07-18 12:09 ` Sander
2007-07-18 12:19 ` Justin Piszcz
2007-07-18 13:32 ` Sander
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=Pine.LNX.4.64.0707180614480.7659@p34.internal.lan \
--to=jpiszcz@lucidpixels.com \
--cc=linux-ide-arrays@lists.math.uh.edu \
--cc=linux-raid@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=xfs@oss.sgi.com \
/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).