Re: [gentoo-user] RAID 1 vs RAID 0 - Read perfonmance
On 24-Feb-14 7:27, Facundo Curti wrote: n= number of disks reads: raid1: n*2 raid0: n*2 writes: raid1: n raid0: n*2 But, in real life, the reads from raid 0 doesn't work at all, because if you use chunk size from 4k, and you need to read just 2kb (most binary files, txt files, etc..). the read speed should be just of n. Definitely not true. Very rarely you need to read just one small file. Mostly you need many small files (i.e. compilation) or a few big files (i.e. database). I do not know what load you expect, but in my case raid0 (with SSD) gave me about twice the r/w speed on heavily-loaded virtualization platform with many virtual machines. And not only speed is higher, but also IOPS are splitted to two disks (nearly doubled). I did some testing with 2xSSD/512GB in raid1, 2xSSD/256GB in raid0 and 3xSSD/256GB in raid5 (I used 840/pro SSD with quite good HW-controller but I think with mdadm it might be similar). Raid0 was way ahead of other two configurations in my case. Finally I went for 4xSSD/256GB in raid10 as I needed both speed and redundancy... Jarry -- ___ This mailbox accepts e-mails only from selected mailing-lists! Everything else is considered to be spam and therefore deleted.
Re: [gentoo-user] RAID 1 vs RAID 0 - Read perfonmance
Thank you all! :) I finally have all clear. I'm going to do raid 10. Any way, I'm going to do a benchmark before to install. Thank you!;) 2014-02-24 14:03 GMT-03:00 Jarry mr.ja...@gmail.com: On 24-Feb-14 7:27, Facundo Curti wrote: n= number of disks reads: raid1: n*2 raid0: n*2 writes: raid1: n raid0: n*2 But, in real life, the reads from raid 0 doesn't work at all, because if you use chunk size from 4k, and you need to read just 2kb (most binary files, txt files, etc..). the read speed should be just of n. Definitely not true. Very rarely you need to read just one small file. Mostly you need many small files (i.e. compilation) or a few big files (i.e. database). I do not know what load you expect, but in my case raid0 (with SSD) gave me about twice the r/w speed on heavily-loaded virtualization platform with many virtual machines. And not only speed is higher, but also IOPS are splitted to two disks (nearly doubled). I did some testing with 2xSSD/512GB in raid1, 2xSSD/256GB in raid0 and 3xSSD/256GB in raid5 (I used 840/pro SSD with quite good HW-controller but I think with mdadm it might be similar). Raid0 was way ahead of other two configurations in my case. Finally I went for 4xSSD/256GB in raid10 as I needed both speed and redundancy... Jarry -- ___ This mailbox accepts e-mails only from selected mailing-lists! Everything else is considered to be spam and therefore deleted.
Re: [gentoo-user] RAID 1 vs RAID 0 - Read perfonmance
On 24/02/2014 06:27, Facundo Curti wrote: Hi. I am again, with a similar question to previous. I want to install RAID on SSD's. Comparing THEORETICALLY, RAID0 (stripe) vs RAID1 (mirrior). The performance would be something like this: n= number of disks reads: raid1: n*2 raid0: n*2 writes: raid1: n raid0: n*2 But, in real life, the reads from raid 0 doesn't work at all, because if you use chunk size from 4k, and you need to read just 2kb (most binary files, txt files, etc..). the read speed should be just of n. While the workload does matter, that's not really how it works. Be aware that Linux implements read-ahead (defaulting to 128K):- # blockdev --getra /dev/sda 256 That's enough to populate 32 pages in pagecache, given that PAGESIZE is 4K on i386/am64. On the other side, I read over the net, that kernel don't support multithread reads on raid1. So, the read speed will be just n. Always. ¿It is true? No, it is not true. Read balancing is implemented in RAID-1. Anyway, my question is. ¿Who have the best read speed for the day to day? I'm not asking about reads off large files. I'm just asking in the normal use. Opening firefox, X, regular files, etc.. For casual usage, it shouldn't make any difference. I can't find the guide definitive. It allways are talking about theoretically performance, or about real life but without benchmarks or reliable data. Having a RAID0 with SSD, and following [2] on SSD Stripe Optimization should I have the same speed as an RAID1? I would highly recommend conducting your own benchmarks. I find sysbench to be particularly useful. My question is because i'm between. 4 disks raid1, or RAID10 (I want redundancy anyway..). And as raid 10 = 1+ 0. I need to know raid0 performance to take a choice... I don't need write speed, just read. In Linux, RAID-10 is not really nested because the mirroring and striping is fully integrated. If you want the best read performance with RAID-10 then the far layout is supposed to be the best [1]. Here is an example of how to choose this layout: # mdadm -C /dev/md0 -n 4 -l 10 -p f2 /dev/sda /dev/sdb /dev/sdc /dev/sdd Note, however, that the far layout will exhibit worse performance than the near layout if the array is in a degraded state. Also, it increases seek time in random/mixed workloads but this should not matter if you are using SSDs. --Kerin [1] http://neil.brown.name/blog/20040827225440
