lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2010]   [Mar]   [11]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: RAID + LUKS + LVM performance
On 11.03.2010 09:51, david@lang.hm wrote:
> On Thu, 11 Mar 2010, Matthias Schniedermeyer wrote:
>
>> On 11.03.2010 13:08, Mathias Buren wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> (please cc me as I'm not subscribed)
>>>
>>> I've a friend who's going to set up a fileserver consisting of 8x 1.5TB
>>> HDDs, an 8-port PCI-E RAID card (Areca ARC-1220 @
>>> http://www.areca.com.tw/products/pcie.htm ) etc.
>>> The plan is create a RAID5 array spanning all the disks, then create 4
>>> partitions. These 4 partitions would be encrypted using LUKS (Twofish or
>>> AES256).
>>> These 4 encrypted partition would be set up in RAID0 using Linux' software
>>> (mdadm), then LVM would be used on top of that (one big PV, one big VG and
>>> a big LV or so).
>>>
>>> The reason for this is that kcryptd is not multithreaded (afaik). By having
>>> 4 encrypted partitions, then md0 on top of them, I'm forcing 4 kcryptd
>>> processes to run on all four cpu cores whenever something is written to the
>>> disks, which should improve (encryption) performance.
>>>
>>> Is this a good way of doing it, or is there a smarter way?
>>
>> The setup you describe would only work with SSDs. HDDs would seek
>> themselves to death.
>>
>> The problem is the RAID-0 over the 4 partitions. At that point you would
>> need, instead of the 4 partitions, something that is round-robin. So
>> that the mapping of the (physical) blocks from the upper to the lower
>> would be effectivly linear/unchanged.
>>
>> AFAIK something like that is (currently) not possible.
>
> linux software raid (the md tools) support linear or striped modes for
> raid0, so what you are looking for is available.

Nope. What i meant is:

Let say you had a block-device which has 16 blocks:
0-15
With the OPs description the blocks would be distributed like this:
Part 0: 00 01 02 03
Part 1: 04 05 06 07
Part 2: 08 09 10 11
Part 3: 12 13 14 15

What you need is a distribution like this:
Device 0: 01 05 09 13
Device 1: 02 06 10 14
Device 2: 03 07 11 15
Device 3: 04 08 12 16

IOW:
Blocks % 4 == 0 on device 0
Blocks % 4 == 1 on device 1
Blocks % 4 == 2 on device 2
Blocks % 4 == 3 on device 3

I still other words:
You don't want a cake in exactly 4 same size parts. You want a cake in a
million parts and then every 4th starting from the first piece in one
set, every 4th starting from the second in the next and so on.

> however I think that defeats part of the OPs purpose, which was to try
> and spread the I/O across all 4 partitions to be able to use multiple
> cores for the encryption.

I think i just didn't make clear enough what i meant.




Bis denn

--
Real Programmers consider "what you see is what you get" to be just as
bad a concept in Text Editors as it is in women. No, the Real Programmer
wants a "you asked for it, you got it" text editor -- complicated,
cryptic, powerful, unforgiving, dangerous.



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2010-03-11 20:09    [W:0.060 / U:8.088 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site