If to follow you I can only assume that my server is better at
administrating cache than Thomas' server according to these results,
this doesn't tell me much about how the subsystem is handeling the io though.
Command line used: iozone -a -s 128g -r 8m
Output is in Kbytes/sec
Time Resolution = 0.000001 seconds.
Processor cache size set to 1024 Kbytes.
Processor cache line size set to 32 bytes.
File stride size set to 17 * record size.
random random
KB reclen write ewrite read
reread read write
134217728 8192 365802 371250 397293 399526 241641 265306
2013/1/15 Stan Hoeppner <stan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
> On 1/14/2013 9:52 PM, Thomas Fjellstrom wrote:
> ...
>> I haven't been comparing it against my other system, as its kind of apples and
>> oranges. My old array, on somewhat similar hardware for the most part, but
>> uses older 1TB drives in RAID5.
> ...
>> It is working. And I can live with it as is, but it does seem like something
>> isn't right. If thats just me jumping to conclusions, well thats fine then.
>> But 600MB/s+ reads vs 200MB/s writes seems a tad off.
>
> It's not off. As myself and others stated previously, this low write
> performance is typical of RAID6, particularly for unaligned or partial
> stripe writes--anything that triggers a RMW cycle.
>
>> I'm running the same iozone test on the old array, see how it goes. But its
>> currently in use, and getting full (84G free out of 5.5TB), so I'm not
>> positive how well it'll do as compared to if it was a fresh array like the new
>> nas array.
> ...
>> Preliminary results show similar read/write patterns (140MB/s write, 380MB/s
>> read), albeit slower probably due to being well aged, in use, and maybe the
>> drive speeds (the 1TB drives are 20-40MB/s slower than the 2TB drives in a
>> straight read test, I can't remember the write differences).
>
> Yes, the way in which the old filesystem has aged, and the difference in
> single drive performance, will both cause lower numbers on the old hardware.
>
> What you're really after, what you want to see, is iozone numbers from a
> similar system with a 7 drive md/RAID6 array with XFS. Only that will
> finally convince you, one way or the other, that your array is doing
> pretty much as well as it can, or not. However, even once you've
> established this, it still doesn't inform you as to how well the new
> array will perform with your workloads.
>
> On that note, someone stated you should run iozone using O_DIRECT writes
> to get more accurate numbers, or more precisely, to eliminate the Linux
> buffer cache from the equation. Doing this actually makes your testing
> LESS valid, because your real world use will likely include all buffered
> IO, and no direct IO.
>
> What you should be concentrating on right now is identifying if any of
> your workloads make use of fsync. If they do not, or if the majority do
> not (Samba does not by default IIRC, neither does NFS), then you should
> be running iozone with fsync disabled. In other words, since you're not
> comparing two similar systems, you should be tweaking iozone to best
> mimic your real workloads. Running iozone with buffer cache and with
> fsync disable should produce higher write numbers, which should be
> closer to what you will see with your real workloads.
>
> --
> Stan
>
--
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
