From: Chris Snook <csnook@redhat.com>
To: Emmanuel Florac <eflorac@intellique.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: RAID-1 performance under 2.4 and 2.6
Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2008 18:00:24 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <47E975F8.3000702@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20080325194306.4ac71ff2@galadriel.home>
Emmanuel Florac wrote:
> 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... ? :)
>
It means you shouldn't use dd as a benchmark.
-- Chris
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2008-03-25 22:00 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 25+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2008-03-25 18:43 RAID-1 performance under 2.4 and 2.6 Emmanuel Florac
2008-03-25 22:00 ` Chris Snook [this message]
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=47E975F8.3000702@redhat.com \
--to=csnook@redhat.com \
--cc=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