Re: Disappointing RAID10 Performance
From: Bill Davidsen <hidden>
Date: 2009-10-21 23:26:14
adfas asd wrote:
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
--- On Fri, 10/16/09, Rob Becker <Rob.Becker@riverbed.com> wrote:quoted
What command did you use to create your raid-10?/ mdadm --create /dev/md0 --level=raid1 --chunk=256 --raid-disks=2 missing /dev/sdb1 swap mdadm --create /dev/md1 --level=raid10 --layout=o2 --chunk=256 --raid-disks=2 missing /dev/sdb2 /home mdadm --create /dev/md2 --level=raid10 --layout=o2 --chunk=1024 --raid-disks=2 missing /dev/sdb3 ... then copied files and later added the sda parts to the array. (RAID conversion on live system)
No wonder it's slow, you want two far copies, this is more or less mirroring with only two drives. Using a large buffer size also helps, you hurt your performance by limiting readahead. You can also use the 'blockdev' command (--setra) to increase your readahead on the array. Just going to far should about double your speed, the other things may help more.
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
quoted
You might try running iostat in parallel to see if the read_balancer is properly balancing the reads between the two disks.Don't understand this as I'm a bit of a n00b...--- On Fri, 10/16/09, Tomasz Chmielewski <mangoo@wpkg.org> wrote:quoted
If you only use your RAID-10 array for a single "dd if=bigfile of=/dev/null" then yes, it does not give you much over mirroring. If you start using your drives for two "dd if=bigfile[12] of=/dev/null" at the same time, you will notice the difference.OK so it was a fallacy to think this would help with large files, unless more than one is involved.
You are misconfigured. -- Bill Davidsen [off-list ref] Unintended results are the well-earned reward for incompetence.