At 11:16 -0400 14/9/07, Ross S. W. Walker wrote:
Yes, a write-back cache with a BBU will definitely help, also your config,
The write-cache is enabled, but what I've not known up to now is that
the absence of a BBU will impact IO performance in this way - which
seems to be what you and Feizhou are saying. Is there any way to tell
the card to forget about not having a BBU and behave as if it did?
The main problem here is the latency when under IO load not the
throughput (or lack of). I don't care if it can't achieve 300MB/s
sustained write speeds, only that it shouldn't bring the machine to
its knees in the process of getting 35MB/s.
> 4x Seagate ST3250820SV 250GB in a RAID 1 plus 2 hot spare config
is kinda wasteful, why not create a 4 disk RAID10 and get a 5th drive for
a hot-spare.
Logistics meant that it was more important to be able to cope with a
disk failure without needing to visit the hosting centre immediately
afterwards (which we'd have to do if there was only one hot spare).
Also think about getting 2 internal SATA drives for the OS and keep the
RAID10 as purely for data, that should make things humm nicely and to be
able to upgrade your data storage without messing with your OS/application
installation. It wouldn't cost a lot either, 2 SATA drives + 1 SAS drive.
The server box is a Supermicro AS2020A - there is no onboard SATA nor
any space for internal disks - there are 6 bays on a hot swap
backplane and they're all cabled to the 3ware controller.
I've unpacked and fired up one of the other identical machines and
moved the drives from the original to this one and booted straight
off them.
The only difference between hardware is that the firmware on the
3Ware card in this one has not been updated (it's 3.04.00.005 from
codeset 9.3.0 as opposed to 3.08.02.005 from 9.4.1.2).
# /opt/iozone/bin/iozone -s 20480m -r 64 -i 0 -i 1 -t 1
Original box:
Initial write 34208.20703
Rewrite 38133.20313
Read 79596.36719
Re-read 79669.22656
Newly unpacked box:
Initial write 50230.10547
Rewrite 46108.17969
Read 78739.14844
Re-read 79325.11719
... but the new one still shows the same IO blocking/responsiveness issue.
S.
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
