On Mon, Feb 23, 2009 at 11:15:32PM +0100, Piergiorgio Sartor wrote: > Hi, > > some updates. > > > > Device: tps Blk_read/s Blk_wrtn/s Blk_read Blk_wrtn > > > sda 10.08 183.15 408.74 755018 1684972 > > > sda1 0.04 1.24 0.02 5118 66 > > > sda2 10.03 181.71 408.72 749071 1684880 > > > sdb 10.49 187.64 408.74 773532 1684972 > > > sdb1 0.03 1.17 0.02 4837 66 > > > sdb2 10.44 186.26 408.72 767832 1684880 > > > md1 62.95 367.26 391.79 1513976 1615112 > > > md0 0.02 0.18 0.00 724 8 > [...] > > Anyway, I think the difference is too small to be of inportance > > for the performance. Or did you notice a difference? > > What about this: > > Device: tps Blk_read/s Blk_wrtn/s Blk_read Blk_wrtn > sda 5.43 64.15 71.33 598692 665656 > sda1 0.01 0.15 0.01 1421 64 > sda2 5.42 63.95 71.32 596823 665592 > sdb 6.22 219.19 71.33 2045590 665656 > sdb1 0.29 67.16 0.01 626774 64 > sdb2 5.93 151.87 71.32 1417344 665592 > md1 12.56 129.09 57.25 1204696 534320 > md0 0.01 0.08 0.00 724 8 > > Now, I do not recall any particular reason why > it should be like this (i.e. no resync or else), > but it seems to me a bit too unbalanced. > > Could it be a problem with /dev/sdb? > I run smart long tests weekly, but nothing special > was reported, until now. You think the sdb2 read rate of 151 blks/s vs sda2 63 blks/s is strange? Well, it does look strange. OTOH the tps is sdb2 5.93 sda2 5.42 Which is not so big a difference. what is sdb1 and sda1 used for? the fugures there seems even stranger. It also looks strnge that the sdb disk is the slower about 80 MB/s while sda is around 110 MB/s - and then sdb produces more than sda... Best regards keld -- 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
