public inbox for linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: jw schultz <jw@pegasys.ws>
To: Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: raid0 slower than devices it is assembled of?
Date: Tue, 16 Dec 2003 13:25:18 -0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20031216212518.GE1698@pegasys.ws> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <200312151434.54886.adasi@kernel.pl>

On Mon, Dec 15, 2003 at 02:34:54PM +0100, Witold Krecicki wrote:
> I've got / on linux-raid0 on 2.6.0-t11-cset-20031209_2107:
> <cite>
> /dev/md/1:
>         Version : 00.90.01
>   Creation Time : Thu Sep 11 22:04:54 2003
>      Raid Level : raid0
>      Array Size : 232315776 (221.55 GiB 237.89 GB)
>    Raid Devices : 2
>   Total Devices : 2
> Preferred Minor : 1
>     Persistence : Superblock is persistent
> 
>     Update Time : Mon Dec 15 12:55:48 2003
>           State : clean, no-errors
>  Active Devices : 2
> Working Devices : 2
>  Failed Devices : 0
>   Spare Devices : 0
> 
>      Chunk Size : 64K
> 
[snip]

> Disks are two ST3120026AS connected to sii3112a controller, driven by sata_sil 
> 'patched' so no limit for block size is applied (it's not needed for it). 
> 
> Those are results of hdparm -tT on drives:
> <cite>
> /dev/md/1:
>  Timing buffer-cache reads:   128 MB in  0.40 seconds =323.28 MB/sec
>  Timing buffered disk reads:  64 MB in  1.75 seconds = 36.47 MB/sec
> /dev/sda:
>  Timing buffer-cache reads:   128 MB in  0.41 seconds =309.23 MB/sec
>  Timing buffered disk reads:  64 MB in  1.46 seconds = 43.87 MB/sec
> /dev/sdb:
>  Timing buffer-cache reads:   128 MB in  0.41 seconds =315.32 MB/sec
>  Timing buffered disk reads:  64 MB in  1.23 seconds = 52.04 MB/sec
> </cite>
> What seems strange to me is that second drive is faster than first one 
> (devices are symmetrical, sd[a,b]2 is swapspace (not mounted at time of 
> test), sd[a,b]1 is /boot (raid1)).

Possible reasons:

	internal differences on controller

	block remapping (even new disks have bad blocks)

	different firmware

	different physical geometry -- two production runs of
	the same make+model drive may have different
	geometry

	cable quality or routing differences, or interface
	variations that cause subtle timing differences


> What is even stranger is that raid0 which should be faster than single drive, 
> is pretty much slower- what's the reason of that?

You could try increasing the read ahead but that may slow
things down in real world use.

AID-0 isn't RAID (no R), but then again for many arrays the
I is also out of place.

-- 
________________________________________________________________
	J.W. Schultz            Pegasystems Technologies
	email address:		jw@pegasys.ws

		Remember Cernan and Schmitt

      parent reply	other threads:[~2003-12-16 21:25 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 27+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2003-12-15 13:34 raid0 slower than devices it is assembled of? Witold Krecicki
2003-12-15 15:44 ` Witold Krecicki
2003-12-16  4:01 ` jw schultz
2003-12-16 14:51   ` Helge Hafting
2003-12-16 16:42     ` Linus Torvalds
2003-12-16 20:58       ` Mike Fedyk
2003-12-16 21:11         ` Linus Torvalds
2003-12-17 10:53           ` Jörn Engel
2003-12-17 11:39           ` Peter Zaitsev
2003-12-17 16:01             ` Linus Torvalds
2003-12-17 18:37               ` Mike Fedyk
2003-12-17 21:55               ` bill davidsen
2003-12-17 17:02             ` bill davidsen
2003-12-17 20:14               ` Peter Zaitsev
2003-12-17 19:22       ` Jamie Lokier
2003-12-17 19:40         ` Linus Torvalds
2003-12-17 22:36           ` bill davidsen
2003-12-18  2:47         ` jw schultz
2003-12-17 22:29       ` bill davidsen
2003-12-18  2:18         ` jw schultz
2004-01-08  4:54       ` Greg Stark
2003-12-16 20:51     ` Andre Hedrick
2003-12-16 21:04       ` Andre Hedrick
2003-12-16 21:46         ` Witold Krecicki
2003-12-16 20:09   ` Witold Krecicki
2003-12-16 21:11   ` Adam Kropelin
2003-12-16 21:25 ` jw schultz [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=20031216212518.GE1698@pegasys.ws \
    --to=jw@pegasys.ws \
    --cc=linux-kernel@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