mirror of https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Emmanuel Florac <eflorac@intellique.com>
To: Bill Davidsen <davidsen@tmr.com>
Cc: Chris Snook <csnook@redhat.com>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: RAID-1 performance under 2.4 and 2.6
Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2008 09:05:27 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20080326090527.42286e8e@galadriel.home> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <47E98DE4.9000906@tmr.com>

Le Tue, 25 Mar 2008 19:42:28 -0400 vous écriviez:

> And this is what I was saying earlier, there is a trend to blame the 
> benchmark when in fact the same benchmark runs well on 2.4. 

As I mentioned, it looks like 2.4 actually buffers write data on RAID-1
which is inherently bad (after all if I do RAID-1 it's for the sake of
data integrity, and write caching just counters that).
However, how bad dd may be, it reflects broadly my problem : on small
systems using software RAID, IO is overall way better with 2.4 than
2.6, especially NFS thruput.
Though I can substantially enhance 2.6 performance through tweaking
(playing with read ahead, disk queue length etc), it still lags behind
2.4 with defaults settings by a clear margin (10% or more).
This isn't true - fortunately - of larger systems with 12, 24, 48 disks
drives, hardware RAID, Fibre Channel and al. 

-- 
--------------------------------------------------
Emmanuel Florac               www.intellique.com   
--------------------------------------------------

  reply	other threads:[~2008-03-26  8:08 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 25+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2008-03-25 18:43 Emmanuel Florac
2008-03-25 22:00 ` Chris Snook
2008-03-25 22:09   ` Emmanuel Florac
2008-03-25 22:47   ` Bill Davidsen
2008-03-25 23:13     ` Chris Snook
2008-03-25 23:42       ` Bill Davidsen
2008-03-26  8:05         ` Emmanuel Florac [this message]
2008-03-26  8:25           ` "J.A. Magallón"
2008-03-27 21:49             ` Bill Davidsen
2008-03-26 16:51           ` Chris Snook
2008-03-26 16:39         ` Chris Snook
2008-07-16 14:52       ` Pádraig Brady
2008-07-16 18:18         ` Chris Snook
2008-03-26  7:15   ` Bart Van Assche
2008-03-26  7:56     ` Emmanuel Florac
2008-03-27 21:53     ` Bill Davidsen
2008-03-28  7:44       ` Bart Van Assche
2008-03-28 12:04         ` Bill Davidsen
2008-03-25 22:37 ` Bill Davidsen
2008-03-26  8:42 ` Bart Van Assche
2008-03-26 11:07   ` Emmanuel Florac
2008-03-26 11:15     ` Bart Van Assche
2008-03-26 12:36       ` Emmanuel Florac
2008-03-26 13:22         ` Bart Van Assche
2008-03-27 22:03         ` Bill Davidsen

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=20080326090527.42286e8e@galadriel.home \
    --to=eflorac@intellique.com \
    --cc=csnook@redhat.com \
    --cc=davidsen@tmr.com \
    --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

all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®