Re: major performance drop on raid5 due to context switches caused by small max_hw_sectors [partially resolved]

2007-04-22 Thread Justin Piszcz
On Sun, 22 Apr 2007, Mr. James W. Laferriere wrote: Hello Justin , On Sun, 22 Apr 2007, Justin Piszcz wrote: On Sun, 22 Apr 2007, Pallai Roland wrote: On Sunday 22 April 2007 16:48:11 Justin Piszcz wrote: Have you also optimized your stripe cache for writes? Not yet. Is it worth i

Re: major performance drop on raid5 due to context switches caused by small max_hw_sectors [partially resolved]

2007-04-22 Thread Mr. James W. Laferriere
Hello Justin , On Sun, 22 Apr 2007, Justin Piszcz wrote: On Sun, 22 Apr 2007, Pallai Roland wrote: On Sunday 22 April 2007 16:48:11 Justin Piszcz wrote: Have you also optimized your stripe cache for writes? Not yet. Is it worth it? -- d Yes, it is-- well, if write speed is important

Re: major performance drop on raid5 due to context switches caused by small max_hw_sectors [partially resolved]

2007-04-22 Thread Pallai Roland
On Sunday 22 April 2007 16:48:11 Justin Piszcz wrote: > Have you also optimized your stripe cache for writes? Not yet. Is it worth it? -- d - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-raid" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger

Re: major performance drop on raid5 due to context switches caused by small max_hw_sectors [partially resolved]

2007-04-22 Thread Justin Piszcz
On Sun, 22 Apr 2007, Pallai Roland wrote: On Sunday 22 April 2007 16:48:11 Justin Piszcz wrote: Have you also optimized your stripe cache for writes? Not yet. Is it worth it? -- d Yes, it is-- well, if write speed is important to you that is? Each of these write tests are averaged ove

Re: major performance drop on raid5 due to context switches caused by small max_hw_sectors [partially resolved]

2007-04-22 Thread Pallai Roland
On Sunday 22 April 2007 13:42:43 Justin Piszcz wrote: > http://www.rhic.bnl.gov/hepix/talks/041019pm/schoen.pdf > Check page 13 of 20. Thanks, interesting presentation. I'm working in the same area now, big media files and many clients. I spent some days to build a low-cost, high performance se

Re: major performance drop on raid5 due to context switches caused by small max_hw_sectors [partially resolved]

2007-04-22 Thread Justin Piszcz
On Sun, 22 Apr 2007, Pallai Roland wrote: On Sunday 22 April 2007 13:42:43 Justin Piszcz wrote: http://www.rhic.bnl.gov/hepix/talks/041019pm/schoen.pdf Check page 13 of 20. Thanks, interesting presentation. I'm working in the same area now, big media files and many clients. I spent some day

Re: major performance drop on raid5 due to context switches caused by small max_hw_sectors [partially resolved]

2007-04-22 Thread Justin Piszcz
On Sun, 22 Apr 2007, Pallai Roland wrote: On Sunday 22 April 2007 12:23:12 Justin Piszcz wrote: On Sun, 22 Apr 2007, Pallai Roland wrote: On Sunday 22 April 2007 10:47:59 Justin Piszcz wrote: On Sun, 22 Apr 2007, Pallai Roland wrote: On Sunday 22 April 2007 02:18:09 Justin Piszcz wrote:

Re: major performance drop on raid5 due to context switches caused by small max_hw_sectors [partially resolved]

2007-04-22 Thread Pallai Roland
On Sunday 22 April 2007 12:23:12 Justin Piszcz wrote: > On Sun, 22 Apr 2007, Pallai Roland wrote: > > On Sunday 22 April 2007 10:47:59 Justin Piszcz wrote: > >> On Sun, 22 Apr 2007, Pallai Roland wrote: > >>> On Sunday 22 April 2007 02:18:09 Justin Piszcz wrote: > How did you run your read te

Re: major performance drop on raid5 due to context switches caused by small max_hw_sectors [partially resolved]

2007-04-22 Thread Justin Piszcz
On Sun, 22 Apr 2007, Pallai Roland wrote: On Sunday 22 April 2007 10:47:59 Justin Piszcz wrote: On Sun, 22 Apr 2007, Pallai Roland wrote: On Sunday 22 April 2007 02:18:09 Justin Piszcz wrote: How did you run your read test? I did run 100 parallel reader process (dd) top of XFS file sys

Re: major performance drop on raid5 due to context switches caused by small max_hw_sectors [partially resolved]

2007-04-22 Thread Pallai Roland
On Sunday 22 April 2007 10:47:59 Justin Piszcz wrote: > On Sun, 22 Apr 2007, Pallai Roland wrote: > > On Sunday 22 April 2007 02:18:09 Justin Piszcz wrote: > >> > >> How did you run your read test? > >> > > > > I did run 100 parallel reader process (dd) top of XFS file system, try > > this: for i

Re: major performance drop on raid5 due to context switches caused by small max_hw_sectors [partially resolved]

2007-04-22 Thread Justin Piszcz
On Sun, 22 Apr 2007, Pallai Roland wrote: On Sunday 22 April 2007 02:18:09 Justin Piszcz wrote: On Sat, 21 Apr 2007, Pallai Roland wrote: RAID5, chunk size 128k: # mdadm -C -n8 -l5 -c128 -z 1200 /dev/md/0 /dev/sd[ijklmnop] (waiting for sync, then mount, mkfs, etc) # blockdev --setra 4

Re: major performance drop on raid5 due to context switches caused by small max_hw_sectors [partially resolved]

2007-04-21 Thread Pallai Roland
On Sunday 22 April 2007 02:18:09 Justin Piszcz wrote: > On Sat, 21 Apr 2007, Pallai Roland wrote: > > > > RAID5, chunk size 128k: > > > > # mdadm -C -n8 -l5 -c128 -z 1200 /dev/md/0 /dev/sd[ijklmnop] > > (waiting for sync, then mount, mkfs, etc) > > # blockdev --setra 4096 /dev/md/0 > > # ./rea

Re: major performance drop on raid5 due to context switches caused by small max_hw_sectors [partially resolved]

2007-04-21 Thread Justin Piszcz
On Sat, 21 Apr 2007, Pallai Roland wrote: On Saturday 21 April 2007 07:47:49 you wrote: On 4/21/07, Pallai Roland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I made a software RAID5 array from 8 disks top on a HPT2320 card driven by hpt's driver. max_hw_sectors is 64Kb in this proprietary driver. I began t

Re: major performance drop on raid5 due to context switches caused by small max_hw_sectors [partially resolved]

2007-04-21 Thread Pallai Roland
On Saturday 21 April 2007 07:47:49 you wrote: > On 4/21/07, Pallai Roland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I made a software RAID5 array from 8 disks top on a HPT2320 card driven > > by hpt's driver. max_hw_sectors is 64Kb in this proprietary driver. I > > began to test it with a simple sequental r