Hello! Thanks for your proposals. >From my POV, having ~ 100 iops per drive is completely okay, as you see from iostat/fio output it's not even near the case. Hope this clarifies. On Mon, Jun 5, 2017 at 5:55 PM, David Brown <david.brown@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > On 05/06/17 12:06, CoolCold wrote: >> >> Hello! >> Keep testing the new box and while having not the best sync speed, >> it's not the worst thing I found. >> >> Doing FIO testing, for RAID10 over 20 10k RPM drives, I have very bad >> performance, like _45_ iops only. >> > > <snip> > >> >> Any advises would be very helpful. >> > > The best advice I can give you is to take a step back, and try to be clear > what problem you are trying to solve here. What is this system supposed to > do? What are your requirements? What are your use-cases? > > Attempting to optimise the sync speed (or IOPS) of a 20 drive RAID10 set is > a totally pointless exercise in itself. At best, it would be a torture test > for md raid. There is no system in the world where the specifications are > "make the fastest 20 drive RAID10 setup" - at least, not from a sane IT > management. > > When you have a clear picture of what you actually /need/, what you /want/, > what you /have/, and how you want to use it all - /then/, and only then, is > it time to look at possible RAID setups, filesystem arrangements, > alternative hardware, etc. Then you ask for advice on this list (or > elsewhere - but this list is a good starting point), learning about the pros > and cons of a variety of possible arrangements. > > Once you have collected these ideas, with different balances in performance, > safety, space efficiency, features, cost, etc., you can then test them out > and look at benchmarks to see if they will work in practice. -- Best regards, [COOLCOLD-RIPN] -- 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
