From: Ian Soboroff <isoboroff@acm.org>
To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: io performance...
Date: Fri, 20 Jan 2006 08:42:35 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <9cfek33vwvo.fsf@nist.gov> (raw)
In-Reply-To: 43D07C08.5000903@fastmail.co.uk
Max Waterman <davidmaxwaterman+kernel@fastmail.co.uk> writes:
> Phillip Susi wrote:
>> Right, the kernel does not know how many disks are in the array, so
>> it can't automatically increase the readahead. I'd say increasing
>> the readahead manually should solve your throughput issues.
>
> Any guesses for a good number?
>
> We're in RAID10 (2+2) at the moment on 2.6.8-smp. These are the block
> numbers I'm getting using bonnie++ :
>
>[...]
> We're still wondering why rd performance is so low - seems to be the
> same as a single drive. RAID10 should be the same performance as RAID0
> over two drives, shouldn't it?
I think bonnie++ measures accesses to many small files (INN-like
simulation) and database accesses. These are random accesses, which
is the worst access pattern for RAID. Seek time in a RAID equals the
longest of all the drives in the RAID, rather than the average. So
bonnie++ is domninated by your seek time.
Ian
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2006-01-20 13:43 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 30+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2006-01-16 7:35 io performance Max Waterman
2006-01-16 7:32 ` Jeff V. Merkey
2006-01-17 13:57 ` Jens Axboe
2006-01-17 19:17 ` Jeff V. Merkey
2006-01-16 8:35 ` Pekka Enberg
2006-01-17 17:06 ` Phillip Susi
2006-01-18 7:24 ` Max Waterman
2006-01-18 15:19 ` Phillip Susi
2006-01-20 5:58 ` Max Waterman
2006-01-20 13:42 ` Ian Soboroff [this message]
2006-01-25 6:36 ` Max Waterman
2006-01-25 14:19 ` Ian Soboroff
2006-01-25 13:09 ` Bernd Eckenfels
2006-01-18 3:02 ` Max Waterman
2006-01-18 4:30 ` Jeff V. Merkey
2006-01-18 5:09 ` Max Waterman
2006-01-18 4:37 ` Jeff V. Merkey
2006-01-18 7:06 ` Max Waterman
2006-01-18 9:21 ` Alan Cox
2006-01-18 15:48 ` Phillip Susi
2006-01-18 16:25 ` Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz
2006-01-19 0:48 ` Adrian Bunk
2006-01-19 13:18 ` Max Waterman
[not found] <5vx8f-1Al-21@gated-at.bofh.it>
[not found] ` <5wbRY-3cF-3@gated-at.bofh.it>
[not found] ` <5wdKh-5wF-15@gated-at.bofh.it>
2006-01-19 1:58 ` Robert Hancock
2006-01-19 13:14 ` Max Waterman
2006-01-19 14:08 ` Alan Cox
2006-01-20 4:09 ` Max Waterman
2006-01-20 4:27 ` Alexander Samad
2006-01-20 12:52 ` Alan Cox
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2006-01-19 11:39 Al Boldi
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=9cfek33vwvo.fsf@nist.gov \
--to=isoboroff@acm.org \
--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