Re: Very low disk performance on 5.x

From: Steven Hartland (killing_at_multiplay.co.uk)
Date: 05/02/05

  • Next message: Arne : "Re: Very low disk performance on 5.x" 
    To: "Eric Anderson" <anderson@centtech.com>, "Poul-Henning Kamp" <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>
Date: Mon, 2 May 2005 14:25:04 +0100

    ----- Original Message -----
    From: "Poul-Henning Kamp" <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>
    >>Don't mean to be terse here, but I'm talking about the same test done an
    >>two different RAID5 configurations, with different disks, and not just
    >>me - other users in this very thread see the same issue..
    >
    > Uhm, if you are using RAID5 and your requests are not aligned and
    > sized after the RAID5 you should *expect* read performance to be poor.
    >
    > If you your request ends up accessing two different blocks even just
    > once per stripe, this totally kills performance.

    Interesting stuff so:
    1. How to we test if this is happening?
    2. How do we prevent it from happening?
    3. Why would this be effecting reads and not writes as surely the same
    blocking is being done for both?

    RAID5 is becoming more and more the norm with disk and controller
    prices dropping and as such I think it would be good if could get this.
    one sorted.

        Steve

    ================================================
    This e.mail is private and confidential between Multiplay (UK) Ltd. and the person or entity to whom it is addressed. In the event of misdirection, the recipient is prohibited from using, copying, printing or otherwise disseminating it or any information contained in it.

    In the event of misdirection, illegible or incomplete transmission please telephone (023) 8024 3137
    or return the E.mail to postmaster@multiplay.co.uk.

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

  • Next message: Arne : "Re: Very low disk performance on 5.x"

    Relevant Pages

    • Re: Installing SQL Server 2005 on Windows 2003 Server (RAID 5) - need advice
      ... I used to think "RAID5 is great at reading and RAID1 is great at writing etc." directly, however, through the passing time, I saw that it depends. ... If you want me to make a general comment, yes putting your data files on a RAID5 array and putting your log files on RAID1 array is a good practice. ... available disks and set up I can put the data files on D: ...
      (microsoft.public.sqlserver.setup)
    • Re: hardware raid 1, 5 question
      ... is raid 1 any faster, slower or the same as raid 5? ... complicated mode of operation, but a soft RAID1 ... RAID5 performance really depends on a couple things. ... recommend using four disks. ...
      (microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware)
    • geom_raid5 inclusion in HEAD?
      ... Right now there's gvinum with RAID5 support and geom_raid3. ... The latter is nice but only works with a 'strange' number of disks and has the disadvantages associated with RAID3, while gvinum offers poor RAID5 write performance. ... geom_raid5, on the other hand, offers excellent performance due to write combining, that allows 2-phase requests to be converted into 1-phase requests. ...
      (freebsd-current)
    • Disparate performance in two E4500s running Oracle
      ... A5200 with 6x18GB disks and 8x9GB disks ... but still unfavorable ratio for RAID5 ... - Stripe size - From what we've determined, we should be looking at a much ... is no scale limit (which means the backups heavily skew the scale). ...
      (SunManagers)
    • Re: gvinum raid5 performance seems slow
      ... According to my understanding vinum does not overlap requests to multiple disks when running in raid5 configuration so you're not going to achieve good numbers with just "single stream" tests. ... drive drive01 device /dev/ad10 ... sd length 200001m drive drive01 ...
      (freebsd-performance)