From: "Jakob Østergaard" <jakob@unthought.net>
To: Kent Borg <kentborg@borg.org>
Cc: Arjan van de Ven <arjanv@redhat.com>,
Jaime Medrano <overflow@eurielec.etsit.upm.es>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: raid1 performance
Date: Wed, 1 May 2002 18:35:53 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20020501183553.D31556@unthought.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.33.0204301411210.4658-100000@cuatro.eurielec.etsit.upm.es> <3CCE9038.F4C830B4@redhat.com> <20020430102148.D4470@borg.org>
On Tue, Apr 30, 2002 at 10:21:48AM -0400, Kent Borg wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 30, 2002 at 01:38:16PM +0100, Arjan van de Ven wrote, very
> roughly:
> [that RAID 1 is only as fast in reading as the fastest disk because of
> seeking over alternate blocks, and ]
>
> > The only way to get the "1 thread sequential read" case faster is by
> > modifying the disk layout to be
> >
> > Disk 1: ACEGIKBDFHJ
> > Disk 2: ACEGIKBDFHJ
> >
> > where disk 1 again reads block A, and disk 2 reads block B. To read
> > block C, disk 1 doesn't have to move it's head or read a dummy block
> > away, it can read block C sequention, and disk 2 can read block D
> > that way.
> >
> > That way the disks actually each only read the relevant blocks in a
> > sequential way and you get (in theory) 2x the performance of 1 disk.
>
> I am confused.
>
> Assuming a big enough read is requested to allow a parallelizing to
> two disks, why can't the second disk be told not to read alternate
> blocks but to start reading sequential blocks starting half way up the
> request?
This is *not* as simple as it sounds. Believe me, I spent a week trying...
However, with ext2 (and other filesystems as well), a large sequential file
read is *not* sequential on the disk. You should actually see better performance
on RAID-1 than on a single disk for very large reads, becuase some of the lookups
needed (block indirection or whatever) will be run by the "best" disk in the given
situation.
>
> Also, why does hdparm give me significantly faster read numbers on
> /dev/md<whatever> than it does on /dev/hd<whatever>? I had assumed
> there was parallelizing going on. Does this mean I would get a speed
> improvement if I ran my single disk notebook as a single disk RAID 1
> because there is some bigger or better buffering going on in that code
> even without parallelizing?
hdparm is not a good benchmark for this.
Use bonnie, bonnie++, tiotest, or even 'dd' with *huge* files.
--
................................................................
: jakob@unthought.net : And I see the elder races, :
:.........................: putrid forms of man :
: Jakob Østergaard : See him rise and claim the earth, :
: OZ9ABN : his downfall is at hand. :
:.........................:............{Konkhra}...............:
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2002-05-01 16:35 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2002-04-30 12:23 raid1 performance Jaime Medrano
2002-04-30 12:38 ` Arjan van de Ven
2002-04-30 14:21 ` Kent Borg
2002-05-01 16:35 ` Jakob Østergaard [this message]
2002-05-01 17:01 ` Kent Borg
2002-05-01 17:16 ` Justin Cormack
2002-05-01 21:23 ` Bernd Eckenfels
2002-05-02 16:37 ` Jakob Østergaard
2002-06-29 0:01 ` Bernd Eckenfels
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=20020501183553.D31556@unthought.net \
--to=jakob@unthought.net \
--cc=arjanv@redhat.com \
--cc=kentborg@borg.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=overflow@eurielec.etsit.upm.es \
/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