Non-interleaved memory sounds interesting. Where do I change that
setting?
I don't want to change the StorSave setting. I'm not really looking
for maximum performance here, just reasonable. If I can get the same
60 M/s speed that I got from the first server, I'll be happy.
The drives are all running at 3.0GB/Sec according to the drive
information in 3DM.
I have read the entire "Calling All FS Fanatics" thread as it passed
through the list. It was quite interesting, but the main things I got
from it are:
- Increase the read ahead settings
- XFS, JFS, and ReiserFS are faster, but less fault-tolerant, than
ext3
I have already changed the read ahead on both the physical volume and
the logical volume. This gives me increased read performance, but has
no effect on writes. I am sticking with ext3 since I am much more
concerned about stability than performance.
Bowie
Kirk Bocek wrote:
> I saw a definite improvement by turning off NCQ and setting StorSave
> to 'Balanced.' Are these 1.5GB/Sec or 3.0GB/Sec SATA drives? During
> my testing I changed from non-interleaved memory and 1.5GB to
> interleaved and 3.0GB. Made a big difference in bonnie++ results.
> Unfortunately, I can't say which was more important.
>
> If you have the patience, read through my recent (but lengthy) thread
> on the 3Ware 9550 titled "Calling All FS Fanatics." There's a lot of
> good info from many helpful people. I've only gotten full performance
> using JFS or XFS.
>
> Kirk Bocek
>
> Bowie Bailey wrote:
> > I have two identical servers. The only difference is that the first
> > one has Maxtor 250G drives and the second one has Seagate 320G
> > drives.
> >
> > OS: CentOS-4.4 (fully patched)
> > CPU: dual Opteron 280
> > Memory: 16GB
> > Raid card: 3ware 9550Sx-8LP
> > Raid volume: 4-disk Raid 5 with NCQ and Write Cache enabled
> >
> > On the first server I have decent performance. Nothing spectacular,
> > but good enough. The second one has about 1/3 the write speed. I
> > can't find any difference between the systems. Both of them have
> > the same stripe size, both have ext3 filesystems, both have write
> > caching and NCQ turned on. I have already increased the read ahead
> > setting to 16384 on both servers.
> >
> > I ran the tests like this:
> >
> > # sync; bonnie++ -d /iotest -s 50g -n 0 -b -f
> > (I have removed some extra information from the reports for brevity)
> >
> > And here are the results for the two servers:
> >
> > ------Output------- --Input--
> > --Block-- -Rewrite- --Block-- --Seeks--
> > Machine Size K/sec %CP K/sec %CP K/sec %CP /sec %CP
> > First 50G 62893 25 46763 12 160672 19 120.6 1
> > Second 50G 18835 7 44025 12 194719 24 122.8 1
> >
> > As you can see, the write performance of the second server is
> > terrible. Anyone have any suggestions of what I can look for? I
> > keep thinking there must be something I tweaked on the first server
> > that I forgot about for the second one, but so far I haven't been
> > able to find it.
> >
> > Any suggestions appreciated!
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
