| To: | Sebastian Brings <sebas@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: Poor performance -- poor config? |
| From: | David Chinner <dgc@xxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Fri, 22 Jun 2007 09:59:32 +1000 |
| Cc: | Justin Piszcz <jpiszcz@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Robert Petkus <rpetkus@xxxxxxx>, xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| In-reply-to: | <55EF1E5D5804A542A6CA37E446DDC206F5C5AA@mapibe17.exchange.xchg> |
| References: | <4679951E.8050601@bnl.gov> <Pine.LNX.4.64.0706201703310.27484@p34.internal.lan> <46799939.2080503@bnl.gov> <Pine.LNX.4.64.0706201723050.30471@p34.internal.lan> <55EF1E5D5804A542A6CA37E446DDC206F5C5AA@mapibe17.exchange.xchg> |
| Sender: | xfs-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| User-agent: | Mutt/1.4.2.1i |
On Thu, Jun 21, 2007 at 08:37:36AM +0200, Sebastian Brings wrote: > Not sure if it makes much sense to set stripe unit and width for a Raid > which appears as a single device. Certainly it does. That way you get stripe aligned allocation and therfore you are much more likely to get full-stripe width writes instead of unaligned writes that force RMW cycles on the RAID controller for parity calculations. > As you state, the "width" of your DS lun is 4 x 512K == 2MB. In case you > don't have write cache enabled each of your 1MB writes will cause the DS > to write to two out of four disks only, causing heavy overhead to create > parity. You're assuming stripe aligned I/O there. That 1MB could hit 3 of the 4 data disks - if you don't have a stripe unit set then that will be the common case. i.e. its worse than you think :/ Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner Principal Engineer SGI Australian Software Group |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: Review: Multi-File Data Streams V2, Timothy Shimmin |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: is this thing on..., Eric Sandeen |
| Previous by Thread: | RE: Poor performance -- poor config?, Sebastian Brings |
| Next by Thread: | is this thing on..., Eric Sandeen |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |