Jijo,
Federico Sevilla III wrote:
> Version 1.01d ------Sequential Output------ --Sequential Input---Rando
> -Per Chr- --Block-- -Rewrite- -Per Chr- --Block----Seeks
> Machine Size K/sec %CP K/sec %CP K/sec %CP K/sec %CP K/sec %CP /sec %
> Gusi-NFS-XFS 1G 4200 82 5937 7 1988 4 4037 76 10512 9 120.3
>>-------------------------------^^^^
That's the best you'll get out of your 3ware 6400 card under RAID5, so your
bottleneck is the card, not the network, here. :-( If you want good
performance out of a 3ware card, use RAID 1 or 10 (if you have a 6x00 card)
or get a 7x10, which will do about 17MB/s in RAID5. It's still not great,
but a lot better than 6MB/s. RAID1/10 on the 7810 is >>100MB/s for writes,
and about 180MB/s reads.
So, here's what I get for performance on NFSv3 over gigabit ethernet to XFS
(I didn't tweak the r/wmem_default values, only the r/wmem_max. r/wsize is
set to 32k.
Version 1.01c ------Sequential Output------ --Sequential Input-
--Random-
-Per Chr- --Block-- -Rewrite- -Per Chr- --Block--
--Seeks--
Machine Size K/sec %CP K/sec %CP K/sec %CP K/sec %CP K/sec %CP /sec
%CP
dp9nfsdp8 2000M:64k 10918 96 25679 23 8436 14 10731 99 42655 34 100.8
5
dp9nfsdp8 2000M:64k 10992 98 25247 23 9225 15 10749 99 48310 44 121.7
6
dp9nfsdp8 2000M:64k 11022 98 24388 21 8503 14 10729 99 45993 39 113.1
6
dp9nfsdp8 2000M:64k 11027 98 25949 23 8467 15 10752 99 41494 32 101.4
6
dp9nfsdp8 2000M:64k 10968 98 26145 24 8760 15 10751 99 43958 36 98.0
6
dp9nfsdp8 2000M:64k 11037 98 28687 27 8533 15 10747 99 43546 36 101.7
6
dp9nfsdp8 2000M:64k 11053 98 24593 21 8513 14 10751 99 41769 33 102.2
5
The XFS volume is RAID50, hw RAID5, then sw RAID0 (striped), hence the
reason I can get >17MB/s. I used a 512kb chunksize for the sw RAID0, but I
think I might be able to get better performance if I used 448kb.
*and* no data/inode corruption now that '-i size=512' now.
Cheers,
Dan
--
Dan Yocum
Sloan Digital Sky Survey, Fermilab 630.840.6509
yocum@xxxxxxxx, http://www.sdss.org
SDSS. Mapping the Universe.
|