From: Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com>
To: Stan Hoeppner <stan@hardwarefreak.com>
Cc: xfs@oss.sgi.com
Subject: Re: Verify filesystem is aligned to stripes
Date: Thu, 25 Nov 2010 21:15:37 +1100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20101125101537.GD12187@dastard> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4CEE0995.9030900@hardwarefreak.com>
On Thu, Nov 25, 2010 at 01:00:37AM -0600, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
> Dave Chinner put forth on 11/24/2010 11:46 PM:
>
> > Because writes for workloads like this are never full stripe writes.
> > Hence reads must be done to pullin the rest of the stripe before the
> > new parity can be calculated. This RMW cycle for small IOs has
> > always been the pain point for stripe based parity protection. If
> > you are doing lots of small IOs, RAID1 is your friend.
>
> Do you really mean RAID1 here Dave, or RAID10? If RAID1, please
> elaborate a bit.
RAID10 is just a convenient way of saying "striped mirrors" or
"mirrored stripes". Fundamentally they are still using RAID1 for
redundancy - a mirror of two devices. A device could be a single
drive or a stripe of drives.
> RAID1 traditionally has equal read performance to a
> single device, and half the write performance of a single device.
A good RAID1 implementation typically has the read performance of
two devices (i.e. it can read from both legs simultaneously) and the
write performance of a single device.
Parity based RAID is only fast for large write IOs or small IOs that
are close enough together that a stripe cache can coalesce them into
large writes. If this can't be acheived, parity based raid will be
no faster than a _single drive_ for writes because all drives will
be involved in RMW cycles. Indeed, I've seen RAID5 luns be saturated
at only 50 iops because every IO required a RMW cycle, while an
equivalent number of drives using RAID1 of RAID0 stripes did 1,000
iops...
Cheers,
Dave.
--
Dave Chinner
david@fromorbit.com
_______________________________________________
xfs mailing list
xfs@oss.sgi.com
http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2010-11-25 10:14 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2010-11-24 18:39 Verify filesystem is aligned to stripes Spelic
2010-11-25 5:46 ` Dave Chinner
2010-11-25 7:00 ` Stan Hoeppner
2010-11-25 10:15 ` Dave Chinner [this message]
2010-11-25 22:57 ` Stan Hoeppner
2010-11-26 8:16 ` Emmanuel Florac
2010-11-26 12:22 ` Dave Chinner
2010-11-26 13:15 ` Spelic
2010-11-26 14:05 ` Michael Monnerie
2010-11-26 14:36 ` Emmanuel Florac
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2010-11-26 2:43 Richard Scobie
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=20101125101537.GD12187@dastard \
--to=david@fromorbit.com \
--cc=stan@hardwarefreak.com \
--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