Re: 20 disks, fastest possible mostly-sequential read speeds

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 




On May 18, 2015 11:45:32 PM CDT, Adam Goryachev <mailinglists@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>On 19/05/15 12:37, Jon Nelson wrote:
>> I'm looking for some advise on tuning.
>> I have a server with 20 disks behind an LSI 9271-something.
>> They are currently exposed as 20 individual raid0 with a "strip" size
>> of 1MB,
>Ummm, you have 20 disks connected to some raid controller, which 
>presents them as 20 raid0 arrays? Or are they raid0 arrays consisting
>of 
>only one disk? or JBOD? or something else?
>
>> and assembled into an mdraid, meta 1.2, layout 10 format f2,
>> with a 1MB chunk size and formatted using ext4 -T largefile.
>> To date, this has given me the best numbers when reading some 10,000
>> files (total size: about 2.5TB) sequentially or in parallel.
>
>What other things did you try?
>How did you measure this?
>What answers did you get?
>
>> I can't seem to get better than about 1,800 MB/s read speeds though.
>I
>> *should* be able to get closer to 3,000 based on what the drives are
>> capable of. 

You also need to be aware of controller and bus limits as well as any 10 bit (eg:sas) vs. 8 bit units between the numbers you're seeing, not to mention other overheads in the software end of your storage stack.

>> Quite some time ago on this very hardware I saw a
>> sustained 2,750 MB/s but I don't remember how I got there.
>Are you looking for sequential or random access? You will get very 
>different numbers for each of these.

Also, read vs write, cache hit vs buffered write, etc.

>> readahead values have been adjusted, I/O scheduler, etc... all played
>> with with some benefit but nothing huge. What should I be looking at
>> here if I want the best possible read performance?
>>
>> I don't want to give up some measure of redundancy.
>
>The clue here is to test and measure, and keep a record of the results.
>
>It can be really frustrating when you can't get the same good result
>you 
>had last week. IME, it is a matter of testing something different, and 
>that is why the result is different.
>
>Regards,
>Adam

/me nods

Cheers,
Brian

-- 
Sent from my mobile device
--
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




[Index of Archives]     [Linux RAID Wiki]     [ATA RAID]     [Linux SCSI Target Infrastructure]     [Linux Block]     [Linux IDE]     [Linux SCSI]     [Linux Hams]     [Device Mapper]     [Device Mapper Cryptographics]     [Kernel]     [Linux Admin]     [Linux Net]     [GFS]     [RPM]     [git]     [Yosemite Forum]


  Powered by Linux