[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <483DE40D.8090608@tmr.com>
Date: Wed, 28 May 2008 19:00:29 -0400
From: Bill Davidsen <davidsen@....com>
To: Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
CC: Jens Bäckman <jens.backman@...il.com>,
Justin Piszcz <jpiszcz@...idpixels.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-raid@...r.kernel.org,
xfs@....sgi.com
Subject: Re: Performance Characteristics of All Linux RAIDs (mdadm/bonnie++)
Alan Cox wrote:
> On Wed, 28 May 2008 18:34:00 +0200
> "Jens Bäckman" <jens.backman@...il.com> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, May 28, 2008 at 10:53 AM, Justin Piszcz <jpiszcz@...idpixels.com> wrote:
>>> Results:
>>>
>>> http://home.comcast.net/~jpiszcz/raid/20080528/raid-levels.html
>>> http://home.comcast.net/~jpiszcz/raid/20080528/raid-levels.txt
>> Either the RAID 1 read speed must be wrong, or something is odd in the
>> Linux implementation. There's six drives that can be used for reading
>> at the same time, as they contain the very same data. 63MB/s
>> sequential looks like what you would get from a single drive.
>
> Which is fairly typical of a cheap desktop PC where the limitation is the
> memory and PCI bridge as much as the drive.
>
I really don't think that's any part of the issue, the same memory and
bridge went 4-5x faster in other read cases. The truth is that the
raid-1 performance is really bad, and it's the code causing it AFAIK. If
you track the actual io it seems to read one drive at a time, in order,
without overlap.
--
Bill Davidsen <davidsen@....com>
"We have more to fear from the bungling of the incompetent than from
the machinations of the wicked." - from Slashdot
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists