mirror of https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: lsorense@csclub.uwaterloo.ca (Lennart Sorensen)
To: Justin Piszcz <jpiszcz@lucidpixels.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, xfs@oss.sgi.com, apiszcz@solarrain.com
Subject: Re: Software RAID 5 - Two reads are faster than one on a SW RAID5?
Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2007 11:58:08 -0400	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20070720155808.GA21547@csclub.uwaterloo.ca> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0707200952270.25069@p34.internal.lan>

On Fri, Jul 20, 2007 at 09:58:50AM -0400, Justin Piszcz wrote:
> I have a multi-core Q6600 CPU on a 10-disk Raptor RAID 5 running XFS.
> 
> I just pulled down the Debian Etch 4.0 DVD ISO's, one for x86 and one for 
> x86_64, when I ran md5sum -c MD5SUMS, I see ~280-320MB/s.  When I ran the 
> second one I see upwards of what I should be seeing 500-520MB/s.
> 
> NOTE:: These MD5 contain the 3 DVD ISO's for each platform, 6 total ISOs.
> 
> I know md5sum is cpubound to a degree, do you think that is what is 
> happening here?  Each core can only sustain ~300MB/s and then with two of 
> four cores working, it can exceed that amount or is there some similarity 
> with RAID1 in linux compared to RAID5?
> 
> With RAID1, if you use a single read thread, you will get 60-70MB/s read 
> on a dual raptor raid1.  If you use two(?) or three threads, it will read 
> from both disks and you will see 120-140MB/s.
> 
> Is there some commonality with software RAID1 and RAID5 in Linux in this 
> regard?

Could you just run top while doing md5sum and see how much cpu md5sum is
using on the cpu it is on?  After all if it says 100% for the process,
then yes it is cpu bound at 300MB/s, and if not then I guess there has
to be another explanation.

It looks pretty likely, since I just tried running md5sum on a 130MB
file here, and it takes 0.444s of user cpu time and 0.068s of system
time to process, and I ran it multiple times so the file ended up cached
in ram so disk speed isn't a concern, which I figure means my system
runs md5sum at about 250MB/s.  This is on a single core Athlon 64 3500+
(2.2GHz).  So if you have a slightly faster as you do with a 2.4GHz Core
2, then 300MB/s seems perfectly reasonable per core.  I don't quite know
how md5 hashes work, but I really doubt they are something you are
likely to be able to make threaded.

--
Len Sorensen

  reply	other threads:[~2007-07-20 15:58 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 3+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2007-07-20 13:58 Justin Piszcz
2007-07-20 15:58 ` Lennart Sorensen [this message]
2007-07-20 16:22   ` Justin Piszcz

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=20070720155808.GA21547@csclub.uwaterloo.ca \
    --to=lsorense@csclub.uwaterloo.ca \
    --cc=apiszcz@solarrain.com \
    --cc=jpiszcz@lucidpixels.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=xfs@oss.sgi.com \
    /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

all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®