public inbox for linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Emmanuel Florac <eflorac@intellique.com>
To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: RAID-1 performance under 2.4 and 2.6
Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2008 19:43:06 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20080325194306.4ac71ff2@galadriel.home> (raw)


I post there because I couldn't find any information about this
elsewhere : on the same hardware ( Athlon X2 3500+, 512MB RAM, 2x400 GB
Hitachi SATA2 hard drives ) the 2.4 Linux software RAID-1 (tested 2.4.32
and 2.4.36.2, slightly patched to recognize the hardware :p) is way
faster than 2.6 ( tested 2.6.17.13, 2.6.18.8, 2.6.22.16, 2.6.24.3)
especially for writes. I actually made the test on several different
machines (same hard drives though) and it remained consistent across
the board, with /mountpoint a software RAID-1.
Actually checking disk activity with iostat or vmstat shows clearly a
cache effect much more pronounced on 2.4 (i.e. writing goes on much
longer in the background) but it doesn't really account for the
difference. I've also tested it thru NFS from another machine (Giga
ethernet network):

dd if=/dev/zero of=/mountpoint/testfile bs=1M count=1024

kernel        2.4       2.6        2.4 thru NFS   2.6 thru NFS

write        90 MB/s    65 MB/s      70 MB/s       45 MB/s
read         90 MB/s    80 MB/s      75 MB/s       65 MB/s

Duh. That's terrible. Does it mean I should stick to  (heavily
patched...) 2.4 for my file servers or... ? :)

-- 
--------------------------------------------------
Emmanuel Florac               www.intellique.com   
--------------------------------------------------

             reply	other threads:[~2008-03-25 18:45 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 25+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2008-03-25 18:43 Emmanuel Florac [this message]
2008-03-25 22:00 ` RAID-1 performance under 2.4 and 2.6 Chris Snook
2008-03-25 22:09   ` Emmanuel Florac
2008-03-25 22:47   ` Bill Davidsen
2008-03-25 23:13     ` Chris Snook
2008-03-25 23:42       ` Bill Davidsen
2008-03-26  8:05         ` Emmanuel Florac
2008-03-26  8:25           ` "J.A. Magallón"
2008-03-27 21:49             ` Bill Davidsen
2008-03-26 16:51           ` Chris Snook
2008-03-26 16:39         ` Chris Snook
2008-07-16 14:52       ` Pádraig Brady
2008-07-16 18:18         ` Chris Snook
2008-03-26  7:15   ` Bart Van Assche
2008-03-26  7:56     ` Emmanuel Florac
2008-03-27 21:53     ` Bill Davidsen
2008-03-28  7:44       ` Bart Van Assche
2008-03-28 12:04         ` Bill Davidsen
2008-03-25 22:37 ` Bill Davidsen
2008-03-26  8:42 ` Bart Van Assche
2008-03-26 11:07   ` Emmanuel Florac
2008-03-26 11:15     ` Bart Van Assche
2008-03-26 12:36       ` Emmanuel Florac
2008-03-26 13:22         ` Bart Van Assche
2008-03-27 22:03         ` Bill Davidsen

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=20080325194306.4ac71ff2@galadriel.home \
    --to=eflorac@intellique.com \
    --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