Steven Hartland wrote:
- Original Message - From: "Scott Long" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Ok some real strange going on write performance is ~ 140MB/s:
[..snip..]
where as read is ~42MB/s
[..snip..]
So it doesn't seem like caching is an issue and as others are seeing
similar performance issues on
Ok thanks for that kama good to have some comparison with 4.x
I've changed the subject as this seems definitely like a more generic
issue something that needs to be fixed before 5.4 release?
- Original Message -
From: "kama" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
I have just tested on my system between 4.11
On Fri, 29 Apr 2005, Steven Hartland wrote:
> Just retried with a ~10Gb data set:
> Write to FS:
> dd if=/dev/zero of=.testfile bs=1m count=1
> 1+0 records in
> 1+0 records out
> 1048576 bytes transferred in 92.517222 secs (113338466 bytes/sec)
>
> Read from FS:
> dd if=.testfile
- Original Message -
From: "Scott Long" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Ok some real strange going on write performance is ~ 140MB/s:
gstat:
dT: 0.505 flag_I 50us sizeof 240 i -1
L(q) ops/sr/s kBps ms/rw/s kBps ms/w %busy Name
0 1100 4 63 13.2 1096 140313
There is no precompiled version for 5.3 but looking at the openbuild version
its the same driver as the built in.
80MB/s is still terrible should be looking closer to 200MB/s.
Steven Hartland wrote:
5.4-STABLE Highpoint 1820a RAID 5 ( 5 disk )
dd if=/dev/da0 of=/dev/null bs=64k count=1
1+0
Arne WXrner wrote:
--- Petri Helenius <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Eric Anderson wrote:
I'm seeing similar sequential performance on RELENG_5_3 and
RELENG_5_4
on dual-Xeons using 3ware controllers so it does not seem to be
a driver issue [...]
Why?
I can remember, that some people said some
Steven Hartland wrote:
Scott I've sent this to you as from reading around you did the
original driver conversion and as such may have an idea
on the areas I could look at hope you dont mind.
Ok some real strange going on write performance is ~ 140MB/s:
gstat:
dT: 0.505 flag_I 50us sizeof 240
--- Petri Helenius <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Eric Anderson wrote:
> I'm seeing similar sequential performance on RELENG_5_3 and
> RELENG_5_4
> on dual-Xeons using 3ware controllers so it does not seem to be
> a driver issue [...]
>
Why?
I can remember, that some people said some months before,
Eric Anderson wrote:
I'm using fiber channel SATA, and I get 2x write as I do read, which
doesn't make sense to me. What kind of write speeds do you get? My
tiny brain tells me that reads should be faster than writes with a RAID5.
I'm seeing similar sequential performance on RELENG_5_3 and REL
Peter Losher wrote:
Steven Hartland wrote:
5.4-STABLE Highpoint 1820a RAID 5 ( 5 disk )
dd if=/dev/da0 of=/dev/null bs=64k count=1
1+0 records in
1+0 records out
65536 bytes transferred in 13.348032 secs (49097875 bytes/sec)
Have you tried the driver supplied by Highpoint as a pre
Steven Hartland wrote:
> 5.4-STABLE Highpoint 1820a RAID 5 ( 5 disk )
> dd if=/dev/da0 of=/dev/null bs=64k count=1
> 1+0 records in
> 1+0 records out
> 65536 bytes transferred in 13.348032 secs (49097875 bytes/sec)
Have you tried the driver supplied by Highpoint as a pre-compiled
Scott I've sent this to you as from reading around you did the
original driver conversion and as such may have an idea
on the areas I could look at hope you dont mind.
Ok some real strange going on write performance is ~ 140MB/s:
gstat:
dT: 0.505 flag_I 50us sizeof 240 i -1
L(q) ops/sr/
- Original Message -
From: "Arne Wörner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Did you try RedHat Linux or FreeBSD R4?
Haven't tried R4 or Linux yet. Just finished restoring
700GB onto the machine and would rather not have
to do that again :)
Steve
Thi
Arne Wörner wrote:
--- Steven Hartland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Only on write this is a read test.
Oh. Ok! :-)
But there is a striping-like effect (especially when u use n=8
discs in one RAID-5 and when u do sequential read), so that the
performance could be easily (n-1)*40MB/sec (which would be
--- Steven Hartland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Only on write this is a read test.
>
Oh. Ok! :-)
But there is a striping-like effect (especially when u use n=8
discs in one RAID-5 and when u do sequential read), so that the
performance could be easily (n-1)*40MB/sec (which would be in your
case 3
--- Steven Hartland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> From: "Eric Anderson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >> Where do I start looking?
> > First, understand that RAID 5 is dependant on fast hardware to
> > performa
> > the XOR operations. A single disk without any RAID can easily
> > outperform a RAID array i
- Original Message -
From: "Eric Anderson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Correct - I misread the dd line. When you are doing the dd, what is
your system busy doing? (top/ps info)
The machine is idle only me doing the test via an ssh session.
What do you suspect?
I really dont know what it could
Only on write this is a read test.
- Original Message -
From: "Arne Wörner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Furthermore RAID-5 needs to read the parity block, before it can
update that block, so that there are 2 disc transactions more,
which could explain the better performance of a single disk, too?
--- Eric Anderson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> First, understand that RAID 5 is dependant on fast hardware to
> performa
> the XOR operations. A single disk without any RAID can easily
> outperform a RAID array if the RAID array is on a 'slow'
> controller.
> The Highpoint controllers are not e
Steven Hartland wrote:
- Original Message - From: "Eric Anderson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Where do I start looking?
First, understand that RAID 5 is dependant on fast hardware to
performa the XOR operations. A single disk without any RAID can
easily outperform a RAID array if the RAID array
- Original Message -
From: "Eric Anderson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Where do I start looking?
First, understand that RAID 5 is dependant on fast hardware to performa
the XOR operations. A single disk without any RAID can easily
outperform a RAID array if the RAID array is on a 'slow' contr
Steven Hartland wrote:
I've just finished putting together a new server box spec:
Dual AMD 244, 2GB ram, 5 * Seagate SATA 400GB on a
Highpoint 1820a RAID 5 array.
The machine is currently running 5.4-STABLE ( from the
weekend ) After install I did some basic tests and the
disk is return very poor p
Sorry wanted to send to performance not current :)
Steve
- Original Message -
I've just finished putting together a new server box spec:
Dual AMD 244, 2GB ram, 5 * Seagate SATA 400GB on a
Highpoint 1820a RAID 5 array.
The machine is currently running 5.4-STABLE ( from the
weekend ) Afte
23 matches
Mail list logo
