From owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Jan 15 14:01:26 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5DF8816A4CE for ; Thu, 15 Jan 2004 14:01:26 -0800 (PST) Received: from fep01-mail.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com (fep01-mail.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com [66.185.86.71]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 64D2543D72 for ; Thu, 15 Jan 2004 14:00:20 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from mikej@rogers.com) Received: from win2000 ([63.139.3.63]) by fep01-mail.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.comESMTP <20040115215754.SZEW23685.fep01-mail.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com@win2000>; Thu, 15 Jan 2004 16:57:54 -0500 From: "Mike Jakubik" To: "'Paul Mather'" Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2004 17:00:33 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook, Build 11.0.5510 In-Reply-To: <20040115143923.GC6678@gromit.dlib.vt.edu> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 Thread-Index: AcPbdW1sDqlNrzsOSfqr/e5qhqhMBAAPPmTA X-Authentication-Info: Submitted using SMTP AUTH LOGIN at fep01-mail.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com from [63.139.3.63] using ID at Thu, 15 Jan 2004 16:57:54 -0500 Message-Id: <20040115215754.SZEW23685.fep01-mail.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com@win2000> cc: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Subject: RE: Adaptect raid performance with FreeBSD X-BeenThere: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Production branch of FreeBSD source code List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2004 22:01:26 -0000 > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-freebsd-stable@freebsd.org > [mailto:owner-freebsd-stable@freebsd.org] On Behalf Of Paul Mather > Sent: Thursday, January 15, 2004 9:39 AM > To: Mike Jakubik > Cc: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org > Subject: Re: Adaptect raid performance with FreeBSD > > On Wed, Jan 14, 2004 at 05:52:50PM -0500, Mike Jakubik wrote: > > => This sounds pretty poor for SCSI raid. Here are my results > on a single => Maxtor ATA drive. > => > => CPU: AMD Athlon(tm) Processor (1410.21-MHz 686-class CPU) > => ad0: 76345MB [155114/16/63] at > ata0-master UDMA100 => => # dd if=/dev/rad0s1a of=/dev/null > bs=1m count=100 => 100+0 records in => 100+0 records out => > 104857600 bytes transferred in 2.484640 secs (42202333 > bytes/sec) => => 5 dd's running simultaneously show the > following in iostast. > > What about 5 dd's running simultaneously but with slightly > staggered start times so that four of them aren't hitting the > drive's cache and hence only really testing its interface speed? :-) Here are result with a .3 second delay between each dd start: 104857600 bytes transferred in 9.572284 secs (10954293 bytes/sec) 100+0 records in 100+0 records out 104857600 bytes transferred in 9.261223 secs (11322220 bytes/sec) 100+0 records in 100+0 records out 104857600 bytes transferred in 9.262631 secs (11320499 bytes/sec) 100+0 records in 100+0 records out 104857600 bytes transferred in 9.263857 secs (11319000 bytes/sec) 100+0 records in 100+0 records out 104857600 bytes transferred in 9.265230 secs (11317323 bytes/sec) Im not sure if this was done properly, here Is the command I used: # dd if=/dev/rad0s1a of=/dev/null bs=1m count=100 & sleep .3 && dd if=/dev/rad0s1a of=/dev/null bs=1m count=100 & sleep .3 && dd if=/dev/rad0s1a of=/dev/null bs=1m count=100 & sleep .3 && dd if=/dev/rad0s1a of=/dev/null bs=1m count=100& sleep .3 && dd if=/dev/rad0s1a of=/dev/null bs=1m count=100 iostst -w 1: tty ad0 ad2 ad4 cpu tin tout KB/t tps MB/s KB/t tps MB/s KB/t tps MB/s us ni sy in id 0 2 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0 0 0 0 100 1 119 128.00 37 4.62 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0 0 1 0 99 0 77 128.00 398 49.75 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0 0 2 2 97 0 77 128.00 422 52.72 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0 0 2 1 98 0 77 128.00 421 52.60 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0 0 2 2 96 0 77 128.00 422 52.72 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0 0 2 1 97 0 77 128.00 421 52.60 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0 0 1 1 98 0 77 128.00 421 52.60 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0 0 2 2 97 0 77 128.00 422 52.72 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0 0 2 1 98 0 77 128.00 421 52.60 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0 0 1 2 98 0 77 128.00 422 52.72 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0 0 1 1 98 0 689 128.00 155 19.43 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 1 0 1 1 98 0 77 16.00 8 0.12 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0 0 0 0 100 0 77 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0 0 0 0 100 > Long seeks are the major time consumer in disk I/O (and > multiple spindle parallelism is one of this things in RAID > that helps minimise this penalty). The above dd test is not > a good test of performance in that regard. What it will give > you is a best-case performance, not an expected real-world > performance (which is more valuable to know, right?). > > Cheers, > > Paul. > > PS: Maybe you'll get faster transfers if you do the dd from > single-user mode, with no background system processes > interfering with the disk. :-) > Yes, I agree. Thanks.