LinuxQuestions.org
Support LQ: Use code LQ3 and save $3 on Domain Registration
Go Back   LinuxQuestions.org > Forums > Linux Forums > Linux - Server
User Name
Password
Linux - Server This forum is for the discussion of Linux Software used in a server related context.

Notices



Reply
 
Search this Thread
Old 07-10-2010, 07:49 PM   #1
jg167
Member
 
Registered: Jun 2004
Posts: 40

Rep: Reputation: 15
MD RAID-5 and RAID-10 are both 1/2 the speed of RAID-0


Doing large reads only, with a variety of MD chunk sizes and read block sizes, I continue to see:
A N disk RAID-0 array has about 85% of the speed of N*a component disk's speed. That's not great but sure there will be some overhead, so ok so far.

Also a 2 disk RAID-1, gets pretty much the same read performance as its components, also good.

But a 7 disk RAID-5 array has 50% of the read bandwidth of a 6 disk RAID-0 array. Is it checking bit-xoring even if it gets no errors from the disk? Everything is active with no recovery going on.

And an 8 element RAID-10 array (8 RAID-1 arrays, put into a RAID-0 array) also only does about 1/2 of the performance of a simple RAID-0 stripe made of the same mirror pieces. The RAID-10 is composed of mirrors on the same set of ssd's (e.g. mirror pairs are sda1+sdb2, sdb1+sdc2 ...sdh1+sda2). Is it doing some sort of locking so when it reads from the first mirror pair (the first chunk of the RAID-10 stripe) it locks the other mirror half, so sdb is now locked causing the concurrently issued read on sdb1 (the next chunk) to be serialized?).

If I test each mirror pair individually they each get the same ~350MB/s. If I pick 2 pairs that share a drive (e.g. sda1+sdb2 and sdb1+sdc2) and read from each concurrently, they also run as expected at about 350 each. But if I do all 8 concurrently, 4 run at 350 and 4 run at 170MB/s. So that is likely why RAID-10 is slow, but how is this concurrency slowing things down if its not some sort of shared drive serialization.

This is all on RHEL 5.5, but I don't think md is too different across distributions.

Last edited by jg167; 07-10-2010 at 08:18 PM.
 
Old 07-12-2010, 01:52 PM   #2
Felicia1326
LQ Newbie
 
Registered: Jul 2010
Posts: 8
Blog Entries: 1

Rep: Reputation: 0
I would look past the OS and start thinking about the controller settings. For speed on any RAID array you should set the read/write policy to Write Through and Adaptive Read Ahead. You may also want to think about turning on caching in case of a crash...what hardware are you running on?
 
  


Reply

Tags
md, performance, raid0, raid10, raid5


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Chosing a RAID for NAS: HW Raid, FRAID, SW Raid StefanAO Linux - Server 2 08-30-2009 12:43 AM
S.W RAID vs RAID accelerator (FastTrakR TX4310 ) @ RAID 1 David Zfira Linux - Newbie 6 07-30-2009 12:13 AM
RAID 10 or RAID 5 - boot with RAID 1 - looked everywhere cognizance Linux - Newbie 8 06-11-2009 06:25 PM
LXer: Tutorial: Linux RAID Smackdown: Crush RAID 5 with RAID 10 LXer Syndicated Linux News 0 08-15-2008 12:20 AM
LXer: Linux RAID Smackdown: Crush RAID 5 with RAID 10 LXer Syndicated Linux News 0 02-26-2008 10:40 PM


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:39 PM.

Main Menu
Advertisement
My LQ
Write for LQ
LinuxQuestions.org is looking for people interested in writing Editorials, Articles, Reviews, and more. If you'd like to contribute content, let us know.
Main Menu
Syndicate
RSS1  Latest Threads
RSS1  LQ News
Twitter: @linuxquestions
identi.ca: @linuxquestions
Facebook: linuxquestions Google+: linuxquestions
Open Source Consulting | Domain Registration