lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2003]   [Dec]   [15]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: raid0 slower than devices it is assembled of?
    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
    >
    > Number Major Minor RaidDevice State
    > 0 8 3 0 active sync /dev/sda3
    > 1 8 19 1 active sync /dev/sdb3
    > UUID : b66633c2:ff11f60d:00119f8d:7bb9fc6c
    > Events : 0.357
    > </cite>
    > 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)).
    > What is even stranger is that raid0 which should be faster than single drive,
    > is pretty much slower- what's the reason of that?

    Overhead+randomness would make an md stripe slower.

    This measurement is an indication of how fast the
    drive can sustain sequential data reads

    No Linux [R]AID improves sequential performance. How would
    reading 65KB from two disks in alternation be faster than
    reading continuously from one disk?

    There used to be some HW raid controllers that might have
    improved sequential performance by using stripe sizes of 512
    bytes (every access hit all disks) but then you suffered
    near worst case latency with every non-cached read.


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

    Remember Cernan and Schmitt
    -
    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
    More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
    Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2005-03-22 13:59    [W:0.027 / U:29.652 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site