mirror of https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Stephan van Hienen <raid@a2000.nu>
To: "Peter L. Ashford" <ashford@sdsc.edu>
Cc: Jonathan Vardy <jonathan@explainerdc.com>,
	linux-raid@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: RAID 5 performance problems
Date: Thu, 3 Apr 2003 21:20:29 +0200 (CEST)	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.53.0304032104070.3085@ddx.a2000.nu> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.4.30.0304030858080.20118-100000@multivac.sdsc.edu>

On Thu, 3 Apr 2003, Peter L. Ashford wrote:

> 1.  Disk controllers (get off the motherboard IDE, dump the FastTrak, use
> 	Master only)
fasttrak is nothing more than an ultra version with an special bios
if you don't use this raid bios, there is no difference (for linux)

> 2.  I/O bandwidth (multiple PCI buses)
sure this helps, but he is not even getting near the pci bus
limitations...

> 3.  Memory bandwidth (switch to something like a P4)
my old dual p2-500 had didn't have this problem
(i'm 'the friend' look at the last benchmark (5*80gb raid5)

> 4.  Disks (this is where your friend's dual Xeon system is)
eh, disks are not really his problem
(he is getting 30mb/sec with hdparm for each disk, but getting same result
for his /dev/md0)

>
> Your network probably belongs in this list somewhere, but you didn't
he didn't test any network performance yet, this is just plain disk
benchmarking...


> 26MB/S (there should be almost no difference for the BB drives).  My
> suggestion would be to remove the FastTrak, and get two Ultra-100s and an
> Ultra-133 (or one Ultra-100 and two Ultra-133s).  Use one disk per channel
there is absolutly no performance difference between an fasttrak-100 and
an ultra-100

here benchmark from my system with an fasttrak-tx4 (same card jonathan
has) with WD1800BB :

/dev/hde:
 Timing buffer-cache reads:   128 MB in  0.28 seconds =457.14 MB/sec
 Timing buffered disk reads:  64 MB in  1.37 seconds = 46.72 MB/sec

WD1800BB on onboard ultra100 controller :

/dev/hdo:
 Timing buffer-cache reads:   128 MB in  0.28 seconds =457.14 MB/sec
 Timing buffered disk reads:  64 MB in  1.58 seconds = 40.51 MB/sec

WD1800BB on onboard ultra33 controller :

/dev/hda:
 Timing buffer-cache reads:   128 MB in  0.28 seconds =457.14 MB/sec
 Timing buffered disk reads:  64 MB in  2.55 seconds = 25.10 MB/sec

> > His raid:
>
> <SNIP>
>
> 99MB/S block write, 178MB/S block read
>
> This MUST have had a better disk controller system AND multiple PCI buses.
> The limit of one PCI bus (32-bit/33MHz, as used by the Promise
> controllers) is 133MB/S, and they are exceeding that.
correct, 3 pci busses

but my old system was only 1 pci bus (same mainbord Jonathan is using)
but was getting way higher performance (his raid is getting lower
performance than an single disk)
with only 150mhz more per cpu



  parent reply	other threads:[~2003-04-03 19:09 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 28+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2003-04-03 15:45 Jonathan Vardy
2003-04-03 18:05 ` Peter L. Ashford
2003-04-03 18:47   ` Ross Vandegrift
2003-04-03 19:22     ` Stephan van Hienen
2003-04-03 19:20   ` Stephan van Hienen [this message]
2003-04-03 19:28     ` Alan Cox
2003-04-03 21:02     ` Ezra Nugroho
2003-04-03 21:25       ` Stephan van Hienen
2003-04-03 21:38     ` Peter L. Ashford
2003-04-03 22:09       ` Jonathan Vardy
2003-04-03 22:16         ` Jonathan Vardy
2003-04-03 22:28         ` Peter L. Ashford
2003-04-03 21:42   ` Jonathan Vardy
2003-04-03 22:13     ` Peter L. Ashford
2003-04-04 20:39   ` H. Peter Anvin
2003-04-03 21:06 ` Felipe Alfaro Solana
2003-04-03 21:14   ` Jonathan Vardy
2003-04-03 19:13 Neil Schemenauer
2003-04-03 19:49 Andy Arvai
2003-04-03 20:25 ` Mike Dresser
2003-04-03 21:10 ` Jonathan Vardy
2003-04-03 21:31   ` Ezra Nugroho
2003-04-03 20:10 Chuck Ebbert
2003-04-04 11:44 Jonathan Vardy
2003-04-04 14:39 ` Ezra Nugroho
2003-04-04 15:05 Jonathan Vardy
2003-04-04 16:01 Jonathan Vardy
2003-04-05  0:10 ` Jonathan Vardy

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=Pine.LNX.4.53.0304032104070.3085@ddx.a2000.nu \
    --to=raid@a2000.nu \
    --cc=ashford@sdsc.edu \
    --cc=jonathan@explainerdc.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-raid@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®