From: Justin Piszcz <jpiszcz@lucidpixels.com>
To: jassduec@gmail.com
Cc: linux-admin@vger.kernel.org, linux-config@vger.kernel.org,
linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: RAID 5 throughputs
Date: Sun, 20 Aug 2006 04:37:22 -0400 (EDT) [thread overview]
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0608200436010.13206@p34.internal.lan> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <3a1eedb70608191958u2a6af61er36e01ee7d233998a@mail.gmail.com>
On Sat, 19 Aug 2006, jassduec@gmail.com wrote:
> Yeah, infact it is in a PCI-X slot @66Mhz.
>
> On 8/19/06, Justin Piszcz <jpiszcz@lucidpixels.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Sat, 19 Aug 2006, jassduec@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>> > Hi All,
>> >
>> > I have a storage system with 12 Maxtor 7200 rpm 250GB hard drives in
>> > RAID 5 configuration with one hot spare. Maxtor claims that each drive
>> > is capable of providing 56 MB/s sustained throughput. My host system
>> > is connected to it using 64bit ultra320 Adaptec SCSI card. The host
>> > system has 3.0 GHz pentium 4 (with HT) processor and 4 GB of RAM
>> > running linux kernel 2.6.9. I was wondering what order of "maximum"
>> > sequential read/write, random read/write throughput should i expect
>> > using them. I am using some of the benchmarking tools like Bonnie,
>> > Bonnie++, tiobench, dd, iometer etc. However the results from them
>> > have been very depressing. Theoretically i should be able to achieve a
>> > read sequential throughput close to min(10*56 = 560, 320) = 320 MB/s.
>> > However my results are no way close to it. I was wondering if anybody
>> > can give me some insight of what order of practical throughputs i
>> > should expect using linux and what other factors may be creating
>> > bottlenecks.
>> >
>> > TIA
>> > -
>> > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-scsi" in
>> > the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
>> > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
>> >
>>
>> Is your 64bit ultra320 card in a 64bit PCI + 66MHZ slot?
>>
>> If not, you will be limited to 133mb/s.
>>
>>
>
What speeds are you currently seeing, r/w?
Have you tried making a 3-drive raid5 and increasing it by 1 drive at a
time to see if there is any difference in speed?
Justin.
prev parent reply other threads:[~2006-08-20 8:37 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2006-08-19 17:46 RAID 5 throughputs jassduec
2006-08-19 18:00 ` Justin Piszcz
2006-08-20 2:58 ` jassduec
2006-08-20 8:37 ` Justin Piszcz [this message]
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.4.64.0608200436010.13206@p34.internal.lan \
--to=jpiszcz@lucidpixels.com \
--cc=jassduec@gmail.com \
--cc=linux-admin@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-config@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-scsi@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