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++
> > > b
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_se
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
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 "S
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 p
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 1
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
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 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 cachin
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 ch
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
m
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:
> >
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_siz
13 matches
Mail list logo
