public inbox for linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Brian Davis <bridavis@comcast.net>
To: utz lehmann <u.lehmann@de.tecosim.com>
Cc: xfs@oss.sgi.com
Subject: Re: Negligible improvement when using su/sw for hardware RAID5,	expected?
Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2006 09:29:42 -0400	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <44E07AC6.6000104@comcast.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1155545494.1238.11.camel@donner.tecosim.de>

I'll admit to being ignorant here....all I did was created the Linux 
partition with fdisk and then created the fs on top of that.  Was there 
something else that needed to be done?

Thanks,
Brian

utz lehmann wrote:
> Hi
>
> You are using a partition. Is it correctly aligned? Usually the first
> partition starts at sector 63. Which is in the middle of your stripe.
> Use the whole disk (/dev/sda) or align the start of the partition to a
> multiple of the stripe size.
> But i doubt you will see a performance improvement with such a simple
> test (single threaded sequential read/ write).
>
>
> utz 
>
> On Fri, 2006-08-11 at 23:10 -0400, Brian Davis wrote:
>   
>> Is this expected? I thought I would see more improvement when tweaking 
>> my su/sw values for hardware RAID 5.
>>
>> Details, 3x300GB drives, 3Ware 7506-4LP Hardware RAID 5 using a 64K 
>> stripe size (non-configurable on this card).
>>
>> FS creation and Bonnie++ results:
>>
>> Untweaked:---------------------------------------------------------------------- 
>>
>>
>> localhost / # mkfs.xfs -f /dev/sda1
>> meta-data=/dev/sda1              isize=256    agcount=32, agsize=4578999 
>> blks
>>         =                       sectsz=512   attr=0
>> data     =                       bsize=4096   blocks=146527968, imaxpct=25
>>         =                       sunit=0      swidth=0 blks, unwritten=1
>> naming   =version 2              bsize=4096
>> log      =internal log           bsize=4096   blocks=32768, version=1
>>         =                       sectsz=512   sunit=0 blks
>> realtime =none                   extsz=65536  blocks=0, rtextents=0
>> localhost / # mount -t xfs /dev/sda1 /raid
>> localhost / # cd /raid
>> localhost raid # bonnie++ -n0 -u0 -r 768 -s 30720 -b -f
>> Using uid:0, gid:0.
>> Writing intelligently...done
>> Rewriting...done
>> Reading intelligently...done
>> start 'em...done...done...done...done...done...
>> Version 1.93c       ------Sequential Output------ --Sequential Input- 
>> --Random-
>> Concurrency   1     -Per Chr- --Block-- -Rewrite- -Per Chr- --Block-- 
>> --Seeks--
>> Machine        Size K/sec %CP K/sec %CP K/sec %CP K/sec %CP K/sec %CP  
>> /sec %CP
>> localhost       30G           27722  40 23847  37           98367  99  
>> 88.6  11
>> Latency                         891ms     693ms             16968us     
>> 334ms
>>
>> Tweaked:------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
>>
>>
>> localhost / # mkfs.xfs -f -d sw=2,su=64k /dev/sda1
>> meta-data=/dev/sda1              isize=256    agcount=32, agsize=4578992 
>> blks
>>         =                       sectsz=512   attr=0
>> data     =                       bsize=4096   blocks=146527744, imaxpct=25
>>         =                       sunit=16     swidth=32 blks, unwritten=1
>> naming   =version 2              bsize=4096
>> log      =internal log           bsize=4096   blocks=32768, version=1
>>         =                       sectsz=512   sunit=0 blks
>> realtime =none                   extsz=65536  blocks=0, rtextents=0
>> localhost / # mount -t xfs /dev/sda1 /raid
>> localhost / # cd /raid
>> localhost raid # bonnie++ -n0 -u0 -r 768 -s 30720 -b -f
>> Using uid:0, gid:0.
>> Writing intelligently...done
>> Rewriting...done
>> Reading intelligently...done
>> start 'em...done...done...done...done...done...
>> Version 1.93c       ------Sequential Output------ --Sequential Input- 
>> --Random-
>> Concurrency   1     -Per Chr- --Block-- -Rewrite- -Per Chr- --Block-- 
>> --Seeks--
>> Machine        Size K/sec %CP K/sec %CP K/sec %CP K/sec %CP K/sec %CP  
>> /sec %CP
>> localhost       30G           27938  43 23880  40           98066  99  
>> 91.8   9
>> Latency                         772ms     584ms             19889us     
>> 340ms
>>
>>     

  reply	other threads:[~2006-08-14 14:31 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2006-08-12  3:10 Negligible improvement when using su/sw for hardware RAID5, expected? Brian Davis
2006-08-14  8:51 ` utz lehmann
2006-08-14 13:29   ` Brian Davis [this message]
2006-08-14 15:08     ` Sebastian Brings

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=44E07AC6.6000104@comcast.net \
    --to=bridavis@comcast.net \
    --cc=u.lehmann@de.tecosim.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