From owner-freebsd-performance@FreeBSD.ORG  Wed Feb 18 14:29:48 2004
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-performance@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id CAB4F16A4CE; Wed, 18 Feb 2004 14:29:48 -0800 (PST)
Received: from corbulon.video-collage.com (corbulon.video-collage.com
	[64.35.99.179])	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id 88DB343D1F; Wed, 18 Feb 2004 14:29:48 -0800 (PST)
	(envelope-from mi+mx@aldan.algebra.com)
Received: from 250-217.customer.cloud9.net (195-11.customer.cloud9.net
	[168.100.195.11])i1IMTIlP054236
	(version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK);
	Wed, 18 Feb 2004 17:29:47 -0500 (EST)
	(envelope-from mi+mx@aldan.algebra.com)
Received: from localhost (mteterin@localhost [127.0.0.1])
	i1IMT6w3072596;	Wed, 18 Feb 2004 17:29:07 -0500 (EST)
	(envelope-from mi+mx@aldan.algebra.com)
From: mi+mx@aldan.algebra.com
Organization: Murex N.A.
To: fs@FreeBSD.org, performance@FreeBSD.org
Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2004 17:29:06 -0500
User-Agent: KMail/1.5.4
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
  charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
Message-Id: <200402181729.06202@misha-mx.virtual-estates.net>
X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.39
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Thu, 19 Feb 2004 23:21:42 -0800
Subject: strange performance dip shown by iozone
X-BeenThere: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1
Precedence: list
List-Id: Performance/tuning <freebsd-performance.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-performance>,
	<mailto:freebsd-performance-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-performance>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-performance@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-performance-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-performance>,
	<mailto:freebsd-performance-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2004 22:29:48 -0000

Hello!

I'm trying to tune the amrd-based RAID5 and have made several iozone
runs on the array and -- for comparision -- on the single disk connected
to the Serial ATA controller directly.

The RAID-based FS was newfs-ed with ``-b 65536'', as it is intended to
store very large files. The single-disk FS was newfs-ed with defaults.

No softupdates were enabled on either, since those seem to degrade iozone
results slightly (iozone reads/writes a single file anyway).

The filesystems displayed different performance (reads are better with
RAID, writes -- with the single disk), but both have shown a notable dip
in writing (and re-writing) speed when iozone used the record lengthes
of 128 and 256. Can someone explain that? Is that a known fact? How can
that be avoided?

The machine is an amd64 running a fresh -current. The disks are 200Gb
SATAs. RAID5 consists of 6 of them.

Thanks!

	-mi