Re: Very low disk performance Highpoint 1820a

From: Brian Candler (B.Candler_at_pobox.com)
Date: 04/29/05

  • Next message: Brooks Davis: "Re: wpa_supplicant causes panic in ieee80211_newstate" 
    Date: Fri, 29 Apr 2005 16:00:57 +0100
To: killing@multiplay.co.uk

    > >5.4-STABLE Highpoint 1820a RAID 5 ( 5 disk )
    > >dd if=/dev/da0 of=/dev/null bs=64k count=10000
    > >10000+0 records in
    > >10000+0 records out
    > >655360000 bytes transferred in 13.348032 secs (49097875 bytes/sec)
    > >
    > >5.3-RELEASE Highpoint 454 RAID 5 ( 4 disk )
    > >dd if=/dev/da0 of=/dev/null bs=64k count=10000
    > >10000+0 records in
    > >10000+0 records out
    > >655360000 bytes transferred in 20.410034 secs (32109697 bytes/sec)
    > >
    > >5.2.1-RELEASE Intel ICH3 UDMA100 ( 1 disk )
    > >dd if=/dev/ad0 of=/dev/null bs=64k count=10000
    > >10000+0 records in
    > >10000+0 records out
    > >655360000 bytes transferred in 11.142405 secs (58816745 bytes/sec)
    > >
    > >Obviously something is seriously a miss here somewhere as
    > >both the RAID 5 arrays a producing less throughput than
    > >a single disk.
    > >
    > >Where do I start looking?

    Just some ideas:

    - try reconfiguring your array as 5 separate disks, and dd from a single
    disk. If it's still slower than your ATA disk, then it's probably SCSI
    transfers or controller I/O bandwidth which are slowing things down.

    If you get equal or better performance than your ATA disk, then it becomes
    likely that the RAID configuration is the bottleneck.

    - try reconfiguring your array as two mirrored pairs, and do the same test
    again.

    RAID5 isn't necessarily a good choice for high-performance applications; a
    single block write requires two reads and two writes (to the target data
    disk and the parity disk), and therefore write access to the array is likely
    to be *slower* than to a single disk. You might be better off with
    mirroring. It handles random writes better, and you may get double the
    random read performance since there are two copies of all the data.

    RAID5 is acceptable if your application is mostly read-only though (which
    your dd test is, of course)

    Brian.
    _______________________________________________
    freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list
    http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current
    To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscribe@freebsd.org"

  • Next message: Brooks Davis: "Re: wpa_supplicant causes panic in ieee80211_newstate"

    Relevant Pages

    • Update to CPU Performance
      ... multiple disk luns thinking that it was mostly I/O, ... application are only running on a single CPU. ... multiple mount points using a single disk with 5 partitions I get a much ...
      (Tru64-UNIX-Managers)
    • Re: Processor for photo editting
      ... since and data can come from either disk, independently, instead ... You can also implement RAID0 so half-assed that the controller ... make the controller able to work with a single disk at a time. ... If you then request the data pattern in such a way that between ...
      (rec.photo.digital.slr-systems)
    • Re: Suggested Exchange 2007 partitions
      ... If a server must do two different operations on the same physical disk, like writing to Exchange's transaction logs *and* to its database files, then it will benefit from having the db and the transaction logs on different physical disks, because it will be able to do both operations at the same time; if all files reside on the same disk, the system will be forced to wait for the disk's head to locate and access the data it needs, causing a bottleneck. ... In the case of Exchange, the first suggestion is always to put the operating system on a disk, the databases on another and the transaction logs on a third one; this also has the added benefit of reducing the risk of losing the db and the transaction logs *at the same time* due to a single disk crash, which is great, because you're ok if you have the db and no transaction logs, and you're ok if you have the transaction logs and a backup of the db, but you're definitely *not* ok if you only have a backup and no transaction logs to replay to bring that backup up-to-date. ... After planning your disk layout to split your simultaneous I/O operations around as many disks as possible, you'll need to take into account how to setup RAID for those disks, because you most definitely *don't* want to lose anything due to a single disk failure. ...
      (microsoft.public.exchange.admin)
    • Re: Suggested Exchange 2007 partitions
      ... If a server must do two different operations on the same physical disk, like writing to Exchange's transaction logs *and* to its database files, then it will benefit from having the db and the transaction logs on different physical disks, because it will be able to do both operations at the same time; if all files reside on the same disk, the system will be forced to wait for the disk's head to locate and access the data it needs, causing a bottleneck. ... In the case of Exchange, the first suggestion is always to put the operating system on a disk, the databases on another and the transaction logs on a third one; this also has the added benefit of reducing the risk of losing the db and the transaction logs *at the same time* due to a single disk crash, which is great, because you're ok if you have the db and no transaction logs, and you're ok if you have the transaction logs and a backup of the db, but you're definitely *not* ok if you only have a backup and no transaction logs to replay to bring that backup up-to-date. ... After planning your disk layout to split your simultaneous I/O operations around as many disks as possible, you'll need to take into account how to setup RAID for those disks, because you most definitely *don't* want to lose anything due to a single disk failure. ...
      (microsoft.public.exchange.admin)
    • Re: SW RAID read performance
      ... faster then a single disk reading because there can be used the same ... Can linux SW RAID ... It all depends on which disk controllers you're using and their ...
      (Debian-User)