Justin Piszcz wrote:
On Thu, 28 Jun 2007, Peter Rabbitson wrote:
Interesting, I came up with the same results (1M chunk being superior)
with a completely different raid set with XFS on top:
...
Could it be attributed to XFS itself?
Peter
Good question, by the way how much cache do the drives have that you are
testing with?
I believe 8MB, but I am not sure I am looking at the right number:
root@Arzamas:~# hdparm -i /dev/sda
/dev/sda:
Model=aMtxro7 2Y050M , FwRev=AY5RH10W,
SerialNo=6YB6Z7E4
Config={ Fixed }
RawCHS=16383/16/63, TrkSize=0, SectSize=0, ECCbytes=4
BuffType=DualPortCache, BuffSize=7936kB, MaxMultSect=16, MultSect=?0?
CurCHS=16383/16/63, CurSects=16514064, LBA=yes, LBAsects=268435455
IORDY=on/off, tPIO={min:120,w/IORDY:120}, tDMA={min:120,rec:120}
PIO modes: pio0 pio1 pio2 pio3 pio4
DMA modes: mdma0 mdma1 mdma2
UDMA modes: udma0 udma1 udma2 udma3 udma4 udma5
AdvancedPM=yes: disabled (255) WriteCache=enabled
Drive conforms to: ATA/ATAPI-7 T13 1532D revision 0: ATA/ATAPI-1
ATA/ATAPI-2 ATA/ATAPI-3 ATA/ATAPI-4 ATA/ATAPI-5 ATA/ATAPI-6 ATA/ATAPI-7
* signifies the current active mode
root@Arzamas:~#
1M chunk consistently delivered best performance with:
o A plain dumb dd run
o bonnie
o two bonnie threads
o iozone with 4 threads
My RA is set at 256 for the drives and 16384 for the array (128k and 8M
respectively)
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-raid" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
