- Original Message -
From: "Al Boldi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "JaniD++" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc:
Sent: Monday, December 19, 2005 12:16 PM
Subject: Re: RAID0 performance question
> JaniD++ wrote:
> > For me, the performance bottleneck is clea
- Original Message -
From: "Neil Brown" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "JaniD++" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc:
Sent: Thursday, December 22, 2005 5:49 AM
Subject: Re: RAID0 performance question
> On Tuesday November 22, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > I h
On Tuesday November 22, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I have already try the all available options, including readahead in all
> layer (result in earlyer mails), and chunksize.
> But with this settings, i cannot workaround this.
> And the result is incomprehensible for me!
> The raid0 performance is n
- Original Message -
From: "Neil Brown" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "JaniD++" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: "Al Boldi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
Sent: Wednesday, December 21, 2005 2:40 AM
Subject: Re: RAID0 performance question
> On Sunday Decembe
On Sunday December 18, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> The raid (md) device why dont have scheduler in sysfs?
> And if it have scheduler, where can i tune it?
raid0 doesn't do any scheduling.
All it does is take requests from the filesystem, decide which device
they should go do (possibly splitting
- Original Message -
From: "Al Boldi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "JaniD++" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc:
Sent: Monday, December 19, 2005 12:16 PM
Subject: Re: RAID0 performance question
> JaniD++ wrote:
> > For me, the performance bottleneck is clea
JaniD++ wrote:
> For me, the performance bottleneck is cleanly about RAID0 layer used
> exactly as "concentrator" to join the 4x2TB to 1x8TB.
Did you try running RAID0 over nbd directly and found it to be faster?
IIRC, stacking raid modules does need a considerable amount of tuning, and
even the
- Original Message -
From: "Al Boldi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "JaniD++" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc:
Sent: Friday, December 02, 2005 8:53 PM
Subject: Re: RAID0 performance question
> JaniD++ wrote:
> > > > > > > But
JaniD++ wrote:
> > > > > > But the cat /dev/md31 >/dev/null (RAID0, the sum of 4 nodes)
> > > > > > only makes ~450-490 Mbit/s, and i dont know why
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Somebody have an idea? :-)
> > > > >
> > > > > Try increasing the read-ahead setting on /dev/md31 using
> > > > > 'blockdev
Hello,
> > > > > But the cat /dev/md31 >/dev/null (RAID0, the sum of 4 nodes) only
> > > > > makes ~450-490 Mbit/s, and i dont know why
> > > > >
> > > > > Somebody have an idea? :-)
> > > >
> > > > Try increasing the read-ahead setting on /dev/md31 using 'blockdev'.
> > > > network block devi
- Original Message -
From: "Al Boldi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "JaniD++" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc:
Sent: Sunday, November 27, 2005 6:40 PM
Subject: Re: RAID0 performance question
> JaniD++ wrote:
> > Al Boldi wrote:
> > > Neil Br
JaniD++ wrote:
> Al Boldi wrote:
> > Neil Brown wrote:
> > > On Saturday November 26, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > > > The cat /dev/nb# >/dev/nullmakes ~ 350 Mbit/s on each nodes.
> > > > The cat /dev/nb0 + nb1 + nb2 + nb3 in one time parallel makes
> > > > ~780-800 Mbit/s. - i think this is my
Hi,
- Original Message -
From: "Al Boldi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "JaniD++" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: ; "Neil Brown" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, November 27, 2005 4:39 PM
Subject: Re: RAID0 performance question
> Neil Brown w
Neil Brown wrote:
> On Saturday November 26, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >
> > The cat /dev/nb# >/dev/nullmakes ~ 350 Mbit/s on each nodes.
Why is this so slow?
Or is this the max node-HD throughput?
What's the node HW config?
> > The cat /dev/nb0 + nb1 + nb2 + nb3 in one time parallel makes ~
ED]>
Cc:
Sent: Sunday, November 27, 2005 12:27 AM
Subject: Re: RAID0 performance question
> On Saturday November 26, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > Hello list,
> >
> > I have searching the bottleneck of my system, and found something what i
> > cant cleanly understand
On Saturday November 26, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Hello list,
>
> I have searching the bottleneck of my system, and found something what i
> cant cleanly understand.
>
> I have use NBD with 4 disk nodes. (raidtab is the bottom of mail)
>
> The cat /dev/nb# >/dev/nullmakes ~ 350 Mbit/s on e
Hi,
If you don't speak hungarian, forget this sentence:
Beszelsz magyarul? akkor folytathatjuk ugy is.
On Sat, 26 Nov 2005, JaniD++ wrote:
> Intel xeon motherboard, intel e1000 x2. (64bit)
> But i already write that, if i cut out the raid, and starts the 4 cat at one
> time the traffic is rise
Hello, Zoltán!
- Original Message -
From: "Lajber Zoltan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "JaniD++" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc:
Sent: Saturday, November 26, 2005 6:11 PM
Subject: Re: RAID0 performance question
> On Sat, 26 Nov 2005, JaniD++ wrote:
>
> &g
On Sat, 26 Nov 2005, JaniD++ wrote:
> Hello, Raz,
>
> Think this is not cpu usage problem. :-)
> The system is divided to 4 cpuset, and each cpuset uses only one disknode.
> (CPU0->nb0, CPU1->nb1, ...)
Seams to be CPU problem. Which kind of NIC do you have?
> CPU2 states: 2.0% user 74.0% syst
772 680 S 2.7 0.0 1:09 3 xfs_fsr
6955 root 15 0 1588 10836 S 2.7 0.0 0:56 2 nbd-client
- Original Message -
From: "Raz Ben-Jehuda(caro)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "JaniD++" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc:
Sent: Saturday, Nov
look at the cpu consumption.
On 11/26/05, JaniD++ <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hello list,
>
> I have searching the bottleneck of my system, and found something what i
> cant cleanly understand.
>
> I have use NBD with 4 disk nodes. (raidtab is the bottom of mail)
>
> The cat /dev/nb# >/dev/null
21 matches
Mail list logo
