1 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- |
2 |
Hash: SHA1 |
3 |
|
4 |
kashani wrote: |
5 |
> Sean Cook wrote: |
6 |
> > Redhat In their manual: |
7 |
> |
8 |
>> "With today's fast CPUs, Software RAID performance can excel against |
9 |
>> Hardware RAID." |
10 |
>> |
11 |
>> As I stated before, it depends on where your bottleneck is... if you |
12 |
>> are not cpu bound, software raid is great! and will boost IO through |
13 |
>> put on comparable hardware. If you are already CPU bound, forget |
14 |
>> software raid, it will degrade your system to a crawl... |
15 |
> |
16 |
> |
17 |
> Badly done tests circa 1998 without any sort of methodology, mention of |
18 |
> cluster sizes, etc is proof than any idiot can make a computer slower. |
19 |
> |
20 |
> I'll argue that a fully supported hard raid card is always superior |
21 |
> to a software raid by it's very nature, having local I/O cache and a |
22 |
> dedicated chip. However there are definitely workloads where a software |
23 |
> raid is good enough that spending money on a hardware raid card is |
24 |
> pointless. I can not imagine a case where all things being equal that |
25 |
> software raid would be measurably faster. |
26 |
> |
27 |
> In the event that removing your RAID card makes your disk 5x faster |
28 |
> I'd also recommend removing the admin who setup the original system as |
29 |
> well. :-) |
30 |
> |
31 |
> kashani |
32 |
|
33 |
My post did say "Back in the Day" and it was around 1999 that we did |
34 |
this however, then I was running unstable raid tools and they have come |
35 |
a long way, and I was running 2.2 kernel. |
36 |
|
37 |
However, the only people I am aware of that say the performance is |
38 |
better on hardware raid are hardware raid manufacturers and you... You |
39 |
don't work for LSI do you? Most of the linux software folks agree with |
40 |
me or take a mildly more conservative tone. |
41 |
|
42 |
eg: |
43 |
|
44 |
Redhat Enterprise Linux (circa 2005-2006) |
45 |
http://www.redhat.com/docs/manuals/enterprise/RHEL-4-Manual/pdf/rhel-isa-en.pdf |
46 |
|
47 |
Often the excess CPU power available for software RAID parity |
48 |
calculations greatly exceeds the processing power present on a RAID |
49 |
controller card. Therefore, some software RAID implementations |
50 |
actually have the capability for higher performance than hardware RAID |
51 |
implementations. |
52 |
|
53 |
|
54 |
|
55 |
Mysql: |
56 |
|
57 |
Hardware Versus Software |
58 |
|
59 |
Some operating systems can perform software RAID. Rather than buying a |
60 |
dedicated RAID controller, the operating system's kernel splits the I/O |
61 |
among multiple disks. Many users shy away from using these features |
62 |
because they've long been considered slow or buggy. |
63 |
|
64 |
In reality, software RAID is quite stable and performs rather well. The |
65 |
performance differences between hardware and software RAID tend not to |
66 |
be significant until they're under quite a bit of load. For smaller and |
67 |
medium-sized workloads, there's little discernible difference between |
68 |
them. Yes, the server's CPU must do a bit more work when using software |
69 |
RAID, but modern CPUs are so fast that the RAID operations consume a |
70 |
small fraction of the available CPU time. And, as we stressed earlier, |
71 |
the CPU is usually not the bottleneck in a database server anyway. |
72 |
|
73 |
|
74 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- |
75 |
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (MingW32) |
76 |
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org |
77 |
|
78 |
iD8DBQFD4Sp7y9wPyZpnL2URAg21AKCjuZUMQhjRq9yx3yswJFGEcM0iTACfWtkB |
79 |
g10T1PVfJMB21bWuRCvSLhU= |
80 |
=FB7u |
81 |
-----END PGP SIGNATURE----- |
82 |
-- |
83 |
gentoo-server@g.o mailing list |