From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: =?UTF-8?Q?Mathias_Bur=C3=A9n?= Subject: Re: Performance question, RAID5 Date: Sun, 30 Jan 2011 12:09:02 +0000 Message-ID: References: <20110130094444.68288b0e@natsu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20110130094444.68288b0e@natsu> Sender: linux-raid-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Roman Mamedov Cc: CoolCold , Linux-RAID List-Id: linux-raid.ids On 30 January 2011 04:44, Roman Mamedov wrote: > On Sun, 30 Jan 2011 00:18:34 +0000 > Mathias Bur=C3=A9n wrote: > >> I ran the benchmark found on the page (except for writes); results: > > That's kinda unfortunate, as stripe_cache_size only (or mostly) affec= ts writes. > > -- > With respect, > Roman > Right, it's just that I don't want to destroy my data. I've ran a few bonnie++ benchmarks with different mount options though. You can find them here: http://stuff.dyndns.org/logs/bonnie_results.html It actually looks like stripe=3D384 helped performance a bit. Currently retrying the same mount options but with 32MB stripe cache instead of 8MB. Then you have all the readahead settings as well, like: blockdev --setra 8192 /dev/sd[abcdefgh] blockdev --setra 65536 /dev/md0 And disabling NCQ; for i in sdb sdc sdd sde sdf sdg; do echo 1 > /sys/block/"$i"/device/queue_depth; done I'll try those settings later. // Mathias -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-raid" i= n the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html