Subject: Re: comparing raid-like filesystems
To: Antti Kantee , Jukka Marin <firstname.lastname@example.org>
From: Jason R Thorpe <email@example.com>
Date: 02/01/2003 08:05:23
On Sat, Feb 01, 2003 at 11:08:32AM +0200, Antti Kantee wrote:
> > I don't know why, because when RAID is 100% busy, CPU load is almost
> > zero and the disk load 25% or so. It's like if RAIDframe had some
> > usleep() calls in the code to make things go slower..
> What's your stripe unit size? I also was suffering from inexplainable
> slowness until I dropped the stripe unit size to 16 sectors. Before that
> my RAID5 gave something like 5MB/s write speeds, now it's giving more
> than 25MB/s.
Right, this is a deficiency in how we handle layered disk I/O. Right
now we are limited to MAXPHYS (64k) for each "disk". If this "disk"
is a RAID volume, then this 64k must be divided up among the underlying
components, so 64k / width. This has two problems:
* Since you can't write an entire stripe in one I/O, RAID5
has to perform extra I/O to update the parity.
* You end up using small transfer to the underlying component
Reducing your stripe unit size will mitigate the former. We need
infrastructure changes in the kernel to fix the latter.
-- Jason R. Thorpe <firstname.lastname@example.org>