From owner-freebsd-current Tue Dec 11 14:30:47 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from monorchid.lemis.com (monorchid.lemis.com [192.109.197.75]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 626B137B405; Tue, 11 Dec 2001 14:30:37 -0800 (PST) Received: by monorchid.lemis.com (Postfix, from userid 1004) id 8C2B2786E6; Wed, 12 Dec 2001 09:00:34 +1030 (CST) Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2001 09:00:34 +1030 From: Greg Lehey To: Wilko Bulte Cc: Matthew Dillon , Mike Smith , Terry Lambert , Joerg Wunsch , freebsd-current@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: RAID performance (was: cvs commit: src/sys/kern subr_diskmbr.c) Message-ID: <20011212090034.C67986@monorchid.lemis.com> References: <200112101754.fBAHsRV01202@mass.dis.org> <200112101813.fBAIDKo47460@apollo.backplane.com> <20011210192251.A65380@freebie.xs4all.nl> <200112101830.fBAIU4w47648@apollo.backplane.com> <20011211110633.M63585@monorchid.lemis.com> <20011211153437.A69755@freebie.xs4all.nl> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20011211153437.A69755@freebie.xs4all.nl> User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.23i Organization: The FreeBSD Project Phone: +61-8-8388-8286 Fax: +61-8-8388-8725 Mobile: +61-418-838-708 WWW-Home-Page: http://www.FreeBSD.org/ X-PGP-Fingerprint: 6B 7B C3 8C 61 CD 54 AF 13 24 52 F8 6D A4 95 EF Sender: owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG On Tuesday, 11 December 2001 at 15:34:37 +0100, Wilko Bulte wrote: > On Tue, Dec 11, 2001 at 11:06:33AM +1030, Greg Lehey wrote: >> On Monday, 10 December 2001 at 10:30:04 -0800, Matthew Dillon wrote: >>> >>>>> performance without it - for reading OR writing. It doesn't matter >>>>> so much for RAID{1,10}, but it matters a whole lot for something like >>>>> RAID-5 where the difference between a spindle-synced read or write >>>>> and a non-spindle-synched read or write can be upwards of 35%. >>>> >>>> If you have RAID5 with I/O sizes that result in full-stripe operations. >>> >>> Well, 'more then one disk' operations anyway, for random-I/O. Caching >>> takes care of sequential I/O reasonably well but random-I/O goes down >>> the drain for writes if you aren't spindle synced, no matter what >>> the stripe size, >> >> Can you explain this? I don't see it. In FreeBSD, just about all I/O >> goes to buffer cache. >> >>> and will go down the drain for reads if you cross a stripe - >>> something that is quite common I think. >> >> I think this is what Mike was referring to when talking about parity >> calculation. In any case, going across a stripe boundary is not a >> good idea, though of course it can't be avoided. That's one of the >> arguments for large stripes. > > In a former life I was involved with a HB striping product for SysVr2 > that had a slightly modified filesystem that 'knew' when it was > working on a striped disk. And as it know, it avoided posting I/O s > that crossed stripes. So what did it do with user requests which crossed stripes? Greg -- See complete headers for address and phone numbers To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message