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
>>
>>
next prev parent 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