On Thursday 11 January 2007 23:23, Neil Brown wrote:
On Thursday January 11, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Can someone tell me what this means please? I just received this in
an email from one of my servers:
Same problem here, on different machines. But only with mdadm 2.6, with
mdadm
On Thu, 11 Jan 2007, James Ralston wrote:
I'm having a discussion with a coworker concerning the cost of md's
raid5 implementation versus hardware raid5 implementations.
Specifically, he states:
The performance [of raid5 in hardware] is so much better with the
write-back caching on the
On 2007-01-12 at 09:39-08 dean gaudet [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 11 Jan 2007, James Ralston wrote:
I'm having a discussion with a coworker concerning the cost of
md's raid5 implementation versus hardware raid5 implementations.
Specifically, he states:
The performance [of
Justin Piszcz wrote:
Using 4 raptor 150s:
Without the tweaks, I get 111MB/s write and 87MB/s read.
With the tweaks, 195MB/s write and 211MB/s read.
Using kernel 2.6.19.1.
Without the tweaks and with the tweaks:
# Stripe tests:
echo 8192 /sys/block/md3/md/stripe_cache_size
# DD
On Fri, 12 Jan 2007, Michael Tokarev wrote:
Justin Piszcz wrote:
Using 4 raptor 150s:
Without the tweaks, I get 111MB/s write and 87MB/s read.
With the tweaks, 195MB/s write and 211MB/s read.
Using kernel 2.6.19.1.
Without the tweaks and with the tweaks:
# Stripe tests:
RAID 5 TWEAKED: 1:06.41 elapsed @ 60% CPU
This should be 1:14 not 1:06(was with a similarly sized file but not the
same) the 1:14 is the same file as used with the other benchmarks. and to
get that I used 256mb read-ahead and 16384 stripe size ++ 128
max_sectors_kb (same size as my sw raid5
Justin Piszcz wrote:
RAID 5 TWEAKED: 1:06.41 elapsed @ 60% CPU
This should be 1:14 not 1:06(was with a similarly sized file but not the
same) the 1:14 is the same file as used with the other benchmarks. and to
get that I used 256mb read-ahead and 16384 stripe size ++ 128
max_sectors_kb
On Fri, 12 Jan 2007, Al Boldi wrote:
Justin Piszcz wrote:
RAID 5 TWEAKED: 1:06.41 elapsed @ 60% CPU
This should be 1:14 not 1:06(was with a similarly sized file but not the
same) the 1:14 is the same file as used with the other benchmarks. and to
get that I used 256mb read-ahead and
Btw, max sectors did improve my performance a little bit but
stripe_cache+read_ahead were the main optimizations that made everything
go faster by about ~1.5x. I have individual bonnie++ benchmarks of
[only] the max_sector_kb tests as well, it improved the times from 8min/bonnie
run - 7min
Justin Piszcz wrote:
# echo 3 /proc/sys/vm/drop_caches
# dd if=/dev/md3 of=/dev/null bs=1M count=10240
10240+0 records in
10240+0 records out
10737418240 bytes (11 GB) copied, 399.352 seconds, 26.9 MB/s
# for i in sde sdg sdi sdk; do echo 192
/sys/block/$i/queue/max_sectors_kb; echo Set
Justin Piszcz wrote:
Btw, max sectors did improve my performance a little bit but
stripe_cache+read_ahead were the main optimizations that made everything
go faster by about ~1.5x. I have individual bonnie++ benchmarks of
[only] the max_sector_kb tests as well, it improved the times from
On Sat, 13 Jan 2007, Al Boldi wrote:
Justin Piszcz wrote:
Btw, max sectors did improve my performance a little bit but
stripe_cache+read_ahead were the main optimizations that made everything
go faster by about ~1.5x. I have individual bonnie++ benchmarks of
[only] the max_sector_kb
Justin Piszcz wrote:
On Sat, 13 Jan 2007, Al Boldi wrote:
Justin Piszcz wrote:
Btw, max sectors did improve my performance a little bit but
stripe_cache+read_ahead were the main optimizations that made
everything go faster by about ~1.5x. I have individual bonnie++
benchmarks of
13 matches
Mail list logo
