Yeah I understand the basics to RAID and the effect cache has on
performance. It just seems that RAID 1 should offer better write
performance than a 3 drive RAID 5 array. However I haven't run the
numbers so I could be wrong.
It could be just that I expect too much from RAID 1. I'm debating
about reloading the box with RAID 10 across 160GB of the 4 drives
(160GB and 320GB) and a mirror on the remaining space. In theory this
should gain me write performance.
Thanks,
Ryan
On Fri, Mar 13, 2009 at 11:22 AM, Bill Davidsen <davidsen@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> Ryan Wagoner wrote:
>>
>> I'm glad I'm not the only one experiencing the issue. Luckily the
>> issues on both my systems aren't as bad. I don't have any errors
>> showing in /var/log/messages on either system. I've been trying to
>> track down this issue for about a year now. I just recently my the
>> connection with RAID 1 and mdadm when copying data on the second
>> system.
>>
>> Unfortunately it looks like the fix is to avoid software RAID 1. I
>> prefer software RAID over hardware RAID on my home systems for the
>> flexibility it offers, especially since I can easily move the disks
>> between systems in the case of hardware failure.
>>
>> If I can find time to migrate the VMs, which run my web sites and
>> email to another machine, I'll reinstall the one system utilizing RAID
>> 1 on the LSI controller. It doesn't support RAID 5 so I'm hoping I can
>> just pass the remaining disks through.
>>
>> You would think that software RAID 1 would be much simpler to
>> implement than RAID 5 performance wise.
>>
>> Ryan
>>
>> On Thu, Mar 12, 2009 at 7:48 PM, Alain Williams <addw@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, Mar 12, 2009 at 06:46:45PM -0500, Ryan Wagoner wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> From what I can tell the issue here lies with mdadm and/or its
>>>> interaction with CentOS 5.2. Let me first go over the configuration of
>>>> both systems.
>>>>
>>>> System 1 - CentOS 5.2 x86_64
>>>> 2x Seagate 7200.9 160GB in RAID 1
>>>> 2x Seagate 7200.10 320GB in RAID 1
>>>> 3x Hitachi Deskstar 7K1000 1TB in RAID 5
>>>> All attached to Supermicro LSI 1068 PCI Express controller
>>>>
>>>> System 2 - CentOS 5.2 x86
>>>> 1x Non Raid System Drive
>>>> 2x Hitachi Deskstart 7K1000 1TB in RAID 1
>>>> Attached to onboard ICH controller
>>>>
>>>> Both systems exhibit the same issues on the RAID 1 drives. That rules
>>>> out the drive brand and controller card. During any IO intensive
>>>> process the IO wait will raise and the system load will climb. I've
>>>> had the IO wait as high as 70% and the load at 13+ while migrating a
>>>> vmdk file with vmware-vdiskmanager. You can easily recreate the issue
>>>> with bonnie++.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I suspect that the answer is 'no', however I am seeing problems with raid
>>> 1
>>> on CentOS 5.2 x86_64. The system worked nicely for some 2 months, then
>>> apparently
>>> a disk died and it's mirror appeared to have problems before the first
>>> could be
>>> replaced. The motherboard & both disks have now been replaced (data saved
>>> with a bit
>>> of luck & juggling). I have been assuming hardware, but there seems
>>> little else
>>> to change... and you report long I/O waits that I saw and still see
>>> (even when I don't see the kernel error messages below).
>>>
>>> Disks have been Seagate & Samsung, but now both ST31000333AS (1TB) as
>>> raid 1.
>>> Adaptec AIC7902 Ultra320 SCSI adapter
>>> aic7902: Ultra320 Wide Channel A, SCSI Id=7, PCI-X 101-133Mhz, 512 SCBs
>>>
>>> Executing 'w' or 'cat /proc/mdstat' can take several seconds,
>>> failing sdb with mdadm and system performance becomes great again.
>>>
>>> I am seeing this sort of thing in /var/log/messages:
>>> Mar 12 09:21:58 BFPS kernel: ata2.00: exception Emask 0x0 SAct 0x0 SErr
>>> 0x0 action 0x2 frozen
>>> Mar 12 09:21:58 BFPS kernel: ata2.00: cmd
>>> ea/00:00:00:00:00/00:00:00:00:00/a0 tag 0
>>> Mar 12 09:21:58 BFPS kernel: res
>>> 40/00:00:00:4f:c2/00:00:00:00:00/00 Emask 0x4 (timeout)
>>> Mar 12 09:21:58 BFPS kernel: ata2.00: status: { DRDY }
>>> Mar 12 09:22:03 BFPS kernel: ata2: port is slow to respond, please be
>>> patient (Status 0xd0)
>>> Mar 12 09:22:08 BFPS kernel: ata2: device not ready (errno=-16), forcing
>>> hardreset
>>> Mar 12 09:22:08 BFPS kernel: ata2: hard resetting link
>>> Mar 12 09:22:08 BFPS kernel: ata2: SATA link up 3.0 Gbps (SStatus 123
>>> SControl 300)
>>> Mar 12 09:22:39 BFPS kernel: ata2.00: qc timeout (cmd 0xec)
>>> Mar 12 09:22:39 BFPS kernel: ata2.00: failed to IDENTIFY (I/O error,
>>> err_mask=0x5)
>>> Mar 12 09:22:39 BFPS kernel: ata2.00: revalidation failed (errno=-5)
>>> Mar 12 09:22:39 BFPS kernel: ata2: failed to recover some devices,
>>> retrying in 5 secs
>>> Mar 12 09:22:44 BFPS kernel: ata2: hard resetting link
>>> Mar 12 09:24:02 BFPS kernel: ata2: SATA link up 3.0 Gbps (SStatus 123
>>> SControl 300)
>>> Mar 12 09:24:06 BFPS kernel: ata2.00: qc timeout (cmd 0xec)
>>> Mar 12 09:24:06 BFPS kernel: ata2.00: failed to IDENTIFY (I/O error,
>>> err_mask=0x5)
>>> Mar 12 09:24:06 BFPS kernel: ata2.00: revalidation failed (errno=-5)
>>> Mar 12 09:24:06 BFPS kernel: ata2: failed to recover some devices,
>>> retrying in 5 secs
>>> Mar 12 09:24:06 BFPS kernel: ata2: hard resetting link
>>> Mar 12 09:24:06 BFPS kernel: ata2: SATA link up 3.0 Gbps (SStatus 123
>>> SControl 300)
>>> Mar 12 09:24:06 BFPS kernel: ata2.00: qc timeout (cmd 0xec)
>>> Mar 12 09:24:06 BFPS kernel: ata2.00: failed to IDENTIFY (I/O error,
>>> err_mask=0x5)
>>> Mar 12 09:24:06 BFPS kernel: ata2.00: revalidation failed (errno=-5)
>>> Mar 12 09:24:06 BFPS kernel: ata2.00: disabled
>>> Mar 12 09:24:06 BFPS kernel: ata2: port is slow to respond, please be
>>> patient (Status 0xff)
>>> Mar 12 09:24:06 BFPS kernel: ata2: device not ready (errno=-16), forcing
>>> hardreset
>>> Mar 12 09:24:06 BFPS kernel: ata2: hard resetting link
>>> Mar 12 09:24:06 BFPS kernel: ata2: SATA link up 3.0 Gbps (SStatus 123
>>> SControl 300)
>>> Mar 12 09:24:06 BFPS kernel: ata2: EH complete
>>> Mar 12 09:24:06 BFPS kernel: sd 1:0:0:0: SCSI error: return code =
>>> 0x00040000
>>> Mar 12 09:24:06 BFPS kernel: end_request: I/O error, dev sdb, sector
>>> 1953519821
>>> Mar 12 09:24:06 BFPS kernel: raid1: Disk failure on sdb2, disabling
>>> device.
>>> Mar 12 09:24:06 BFPS kernel: Operation continuing on 1 devices
>>> Mar 12 09:24:06 BFPS kernel: sd 1:0:0:0: SCSI error: return code =
>>> 0x00040000
>>> Mar 12 09:24:06 BFPS kernel: end_request: I/O error, dev sdb, sector
>>> 975018957
>>> Mar 12 09:24:06 BFPS kernel: md: md3: sync done.
>>> Mar 12 09:24:06 BFPS kernel: sd 1:0:0:0: SCSI error: return code =
>>> 0x00040000
>>> Mar 12 09:24:06 BFPS kernel: end_request: I/O error, dev sdb, sector
>>> 975019981
>>> Mar 12 09:24:06 BFPS kernel: sd 1:0:0:0: SCSI error: return code =
>>> 0x00040000
>>> Mar 12 09:24:06 BFPS kernel: end_request: I/O error, dev sdb, sector
>>> 975021005
>>> Mar 12 09:24:06 BFPS kernel: sd 1:0:0:0: SCSI error: return code =
>>> 0x00040000
>>> Mar 12 09:24:06 BFPS kernel: end_request: I/O error, dev sdb, sector
>>> 975022029
>>> Mar 12 09:24:06 BFPS kernel: sd 1:0:0:0: SCSI error: return code =
>>> 0x00040000
>>> Mar 12 09:24:06 BFPS kernel: end_request: I/O error, dev sdb, sector
>>> 975022157
>>> Mar 12 09:24:06 BFPS kernel: RAID1 conf printout:
>>> Mar 12 09:24:06 BFPS kernel: --- wd:1 rd:2
>>> Mar 12 09:24:06 BFPS kernel: disk 0, wo:0, o:1, dev:sda2
>>> Mar 12 09:24:06 BFPS kernel: disk 1, wo:1, o:0, dev:sdb2
>>> Mar 12 09:24:06 BFPS kernel: RAID1 conf printout:
>>> Mar 12 09:24:06 BFPS kernel: --- wd:1 rd:2
>>> Mar 12 09:24:06 BFPS kernel: disk 0, wo:0, o:1, dev:sda2
>>>
>>> Mar 12 09:28:07 BFPS smartd[3183]: Device: /dev/sdb, not capable of SMART
>>> self-check
>>> Mar 12 09:28:07 BFPS smartd[3183]: Sending warning via mail to root ...
>>> Mar 12 09:28:07 BFPS smartd[3183]: Warning via mail to root: successful
>>> Mar 12 09:28:07 BFPS smartd[3183]: Device: /dev/sdb, failed to read SMART
>>> Attribute Data
>>> Mar 12 09:28:07 BFPS smartd[3183]: Sending warning via mail to root ...
>>> Mar 12 09:28:07 BFPS smartd[3183]: Warning via mail to root: successful
>>>
>
> Part of the issue with software RAID is that when you do two writes, be it
> mirrors or CRC, you actually have to push the data over the system bus to
> the controller. With hardware RAID you push it to the controller, freeing
> the bus.
>
> "But wait, there's more" because the controller on a motherboard may not
> have enough cache to hold the i/o, may not optimize the access, etc, etc.
> And worst case it may write one drive then the other (serial access) instead
> of writing both at once. So performance may not be a bit better with the
> motherboard controller, and even an independent controller may not help much
> under load, since the limits here are the memory for cache (software has
> more) and the smartness of the write decisions (software is usually at least
> as good).
>
> Going to hardware RAID buys only one thing in my experience, and that is it
> works at boot time, before the kernel gets into memory.
>
> The other issue is that hardware RAID is per-disk, while software can allow
> selection of multiple RAID types by partition, allowing arrays to match use
> when that's appropriate.
>
> --
> Bill Davidsen <davidsen@xxxxxxx>
> "Woe unto the statesman who makes war without a reason that will still
> be valid when the war is over..." Otto von Bismark
>
>
--
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
