On Mon, Jul 16, 2012 at 08:39:15PM -0500, Stan Hoeppner wrote: > It depends on the one, and what the one expects. Most people on this > list would never expect parity RAID to perform well with the workloads > you're throwing at it. Your expectations are clearly different than > most on this list. Rule of thumb: don't use RAID5/6 for small random write workloads. > The kicker here is that most of the data you presented shows almost all > writes being acked by cache, in which case RAID level should be > irrelevant, but at the same time showing abysmal throughput. When all > write hit cache, throughput should be through the roof. I bet it's single threaded, which means it is: sysbench kernel write(2) issue io wait for completion write(2) issue io wait for completion write(2) ..... Which means throughput is limited by IO latency, not bandwidth. If it takes 10us to do the write(2), issue and process the IO completion, and it takes 10us for the hardware to do the IO, you're limited to 50,000 IOPS, or 200MB/s. Given that the best being seen is around 35MB/s, you're looking at around 10,000 IOPS of 100us round trip time. At 5MB/s, it's 1200 IOPS or around 800us round trip. That's why you get different performance from the different raid controllers - some process cache hits a lot faster than others. As to the one that stalled - when the cache hits a certain level of dirtiness (say 50%), it will start flushing cached writes and depending on the algorithm may start behaving like a FIFO to new requests. i.e. each new request coming in needs to wait for one to drain. At that point, the write rate will tank to maybe 50 IOPS, which will barely register on the benchmark throughput. (just look at what happens to the IO latency that is measured...) IOWs, welcome to Understanding RAID Controller Caching Behaviours 101 :) Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
