There has been a lot of discussion on the mailing list regarding the various raid10 replicas so I benchmarked them compared to RAID 5 all with no optimizations and then re-ran the tests with optimizations, RAID 5 still generally turns out the best speed for sequential writes but raid10_f2 seems to overtake raid5 for reads. All tests used the XFS filesystem. For the results that show 0 this is when bonnie++ reports '+++' for the result which means it went too fast and needed to capture more data to give an accurate number; however, I was only interested in the sequential read and write speeds. All tests are with default mkfs.xfs options, where I used optimizations for the filesystem, these are only mount option parameters as follows: noatime,nodiratime,logbufs=8,logbsize=262144. I have done a lot of testing in the past with mkfs.xfs and its default parameters optimize to a physical HDD or mdraid so there is little point/gain to try to optimize it any further. Results: http://home.comcast.net/~jpiszcz/20080329-raid/ I have gone back to my RAID 5 optimized configuration, I am done testing for now :) __CREATION 1. Test RAID 10 with no optimizations to the disks or filesystems. a. mdadm --create /dev/md3 --assume-clean --chunk=256 --level=raid10 --raid-devices=10 --spare-devices=0 --layout=f2 /dev/sd[c-l]1 b. mdadm --create /dev/md3 --assume-clean --chunk=256 --level=raid10 --raid-devices=10 --spare-devices=0 --layout=n2 /dev/sd[c-l]1 c. mdadm --create /dev/md3 --assume-clean --chunk=256 --level=raid10 --raid-devices=10 --spare-devices=0 --layout=o2 /dev/sd[c-l]1 2. Test RAID 5 with no optimizations as well using the default layout. a. mdadm --create /dev/md3 --assume-clean --chunk=256 --level=raid5 --raid-devices=10 --spare-devices=0 /dev/sd[c-l]1 3. Test RAID 5 with optimizations. a. mdadm --create /dev/md3 --assume-clean --chunk=1024 --level=raid5 --raid-devices=10 --spare-devices=0 /dev/sd[c-l]1 __SETUP 2. Format and set permissions and run benchmarks. a. mkfs.xfs -f /dev/md3; mount /dev/md3 /r1; mkdir /r1/x chown -R jpiszcz:users /r1 __TEST 3. Run the following bonnie++ benchmark 3 times and take the average. a. /usr/bin/time /usr/sbin/bonnie++ -d /x/test -s 16384 -m p34 -n 16:100000:16:64 b. A script will be responsible for running it 3 times and the total time of all runs will also be taken. __RESULTS (REGULAR) a. Total time for f2: 34:35.75elapsed 69%CPU b. bonnie++ csv line below: p34_f2,16G,79314.7,99,261108,43,110668,14,82252,99,529999,38.6667,866.333,1,16:100000:16/64,5910.67,43.3333,0,0,10761,48.3333,6586,47.6667,0,0,9575.33,50 c. Total time for n2: 36:39.66elapsed 67%CPU d. bonnie++ csv line below: p34_n2,16G,76630.3,99,290732,48.3333,118666,16,80120.3,99,216790,16,915.433,1,16:100000:16/64,3973.33,29.6667,9661,20,19641.3,87.6667,5568,40.6667,0,0,10982.3,57.3333 e. Total time for o2: 35:51.84elapsed 67%CPU f. bonnie++ csv line below: p34_o2,16G,79096.3,99,288396,47,130531,17,80963.3,99,205556,14,867.267,1,16:100000:16/64,5490,40.3333,0,0,9218,41.6667,7504,54.6667,0,0,9896,52 g. Total time for raid5 (256 KiB chunk): 45:44.73elapsed 54%CPU h. bonnie++ csv line below: p34_r5d,16G,76698,99,156443,25.6667,83565.7,14.3333,80975.3,98.3333,318142,22.3333,691.067,1,16:100000:16/64,864,7.33333,6716.33,17,542,3.33333,868.333,7.33333,6642,18,491,3.33333 __RESULTS (OPTIMIZED) a. Total time for f2 (block+fs optimizations): 33:33.13elapsed 72%CPU b. bonnie++ csv line below: p34o_f2,16G,79408.7,99,271643,45,133114,17.3333,80911.3,99,436018,31.3333,887.233,1,16:100000:16/64,5649,41.6667,0,0,17981.7,78.3333,4830,36.3333,0,0,17068.7,95 c. Total time for n2 (block+fs optimizations): 33:45.89elapsed 72%CPU d. bonnie++ csv line below: p34o_n2,16G,79750,99,272355,45,148752,20,81030.3,99,288662,21,926.733,1,16:100000:16/64,6797.67,50.3333,10022.3,23,12250,56.3333,5875,43.3333,0,0,18063.3,97.3333 e. Total time for o2 (block+fs optimizations): 34:54.18elapsed 69%CPU f. bonnie++ csv line below: p34o_o2,16G,79807,99,266949,44,147301,19.3333,80913.3,98.6667,216350,15,853.3,1,16:100000:16/64,6397.33,47.6667,0,0,19130,84.3333,5833.67,43.3333,0,0,13921.7,75.3333 i. Total time for raid5 (1024 KiB chunk)(block+fs optimizations) 32:02.28elapsed 79%CPU j. bonnie++ csv line below: p34o_r5d,16G,75961,99,389603,84.6667,185017,31.3333,81636.7,99,496843,36,659.467,1,16:100000:16/64,2836,24,10498,29,2842.67,18,4686.33,50.6667,13650.3,46.6667,2419.67,19 Notes: 1. Problem found with mkfs.xfs using such a large stripe size with RAID10: # mkfs.xfs /dev/md3 -f log stripe unit (1048576 bytes) is too large (maximum is 256KiB) log stripe unit adjusted to 32KiB 2. I will use 256 KiB for all RAID 10 testing. and the non-optimized RAID 5 test. Other misc info for RAID 10: p34:~# mkfs.xfs /dev/md3 -f meta-data=/dev/md3 isize=256 agcount=32, agsize=5723456 blks = sectsz=512 attr=2 data = bsize=4096 blocks=183150592, imaxpct=25 = sunit=64 swidth=640 blks naming =version 2 bsize=4096 log =internal log bsize=4096 blocks=32768, version=2 = sectsz=512 sunit=64 blks, lazy-count=0 realtime =none extsz=2621440 blocks=0, rtextents=0 p34:~# p34:~# mount /dev/md3 /r1 p34:~# p34:~# df -h /dev/md3 699G 5.1M 699G 1% /r1 p34:~# --
| Arjan van de Ven | [Patch v2] Make PCI extended config space (MMCONFIG) a driver opt-in |
| Tilman Schmidt | git guidance |
| Vu Pham | Re: [Scst-devel] Integration of SCST in the mainstream Linux kernel |
| Greg KH | [GIT PATCH] driver core patches against 2.6.24 |
git: | |
| David Miller | Re: Git and GCC |
| Mike | I don't want the .git directory next to my code. |
| Steffen Prohaska | merge vs rebase: Is visualization in gitk the only problem? |
| David Kastrup | What is the idea for bare repositories? |
| Richard Stallman | Real men don't attack straw men |
| GVG GVG | ssh_exchange_identification: Connection closed by remote host |
| Falk Brockerhoff | ftp-proxy and no route to host issue |
| Pieter Verberne | Remove escape characters from file |
| Chuck Lever | Re: [bug?] tg3: Failed to load firmware "tigon/tg3_tso.bin" |
| David Miller | Re: [PATCH] pkt_sched: Destroy gen estimators under rtnl_lock(). |
| Stefan Richter | Re: [GIT]: Networking |
| jamal | Re: [LARTC] ifb and ppp |
