1 |
I would recommend that anyone concerned about mdadm software raid |
2 |
performance on gentoo test via tools like bonnie++ before putting any data |
3 |
on the drives and separate from data into different sets/volumes. |
4 |
|
5 |
I did testing two years ago watching read, write burst and sustained rates, |
6 |
file ops per second, etc.... Ended up getting 7 2tb enterprise data drives |
7 |
Disk 1 is os, no raid |
8 |
Disk 2-5 are data, raid 10 |
9 |
Disk 6-7 are backups and to test/scratch space, raid 0 |
10 |
On Jun 22, 2013 4:04 PM, "Mark Knecht" <markknecht@×××××.com> wrote: |
11 |
|
12 |
> On Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 3:28 AM, Rich Freeman <rich0@g.o> wrote: |
13 |
> > On Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 3:31 AM, Duncan <1i5t5.duncan@×××.net> wrote: |
14 |
> >> So with 4k block sizes on a 5-device raid6, you'd have 20k stripes, 12k |
15 |
> >> in data across three devices, and 8k of parity across the other two |
16 |
> >> devices. |
17 |
> > |
18 |
> > With mdadm on a 5-device raid6 with 512K chunks you have 1.5M in a |
19 |
> > stripe, not 20k. If you modify one block it needs to read all 1.5M, |
20 |
> > or it needs to read at least the old chunk on the single drive to be |
21 |
> > modified and both old parity chunks (which on such a small array is 3 |
22 |
> > disks either way). |
23 |
> > |
24 |
> |
25 |
> Hi Rich, |
26 |
> I've been rereading everyone's posts as well as trying to collect |
27 |
> my own thoughts. One question I have at this point, being that you and |
28 |
> I seem to be the two non-RAID1 users (but not necessarily devotees) at |
29 |
> this time, is what chunk size, stride & stripe width with you are |
30 |
> using? Are you currently using 512K chunks on your RAID5? If so that's |
31 |
> potentially quite different than my 16K chunk RAID6. The more I read |
32 |
> through this thread and other things on the web the more I am |
33 |
> concerned that 16K chunks has possibly forced far more IO operations |
34 |
> that really makes sense for performance. Unfortunately there's no easy |
35 |
> way to me to really test this right now as the RAID6 uses the whole |
36 |
> drive. However for every 512K I want to get off the drive you might |
37 |
> need 1 chuck whereas I'm going to need what, 32 chunks? That's got to |
38 |
> be a lot more IO operations on my machine isn't it? |
39 |
> |
40 |
> For clarity, I'm a 16K chunk, stride of 4K, stripe of 12K: |
41 |
> |
42 |
> c2RAID6 ~ # tune2fs -l /dev/md3 | grep RAID |
43 |
> Filesystem volume name: RAID6root |
44 |
> RAID stride: 4 |
45 |
> RAID stripe width: 12 |
46 |
> c2RAID6 ~ # |
47 |
> |
48 |
> c2RAID6 ~ # cat /proc/mdstat |
49 |
> Personalities : [linear] [raid0] [raid1] [raid10] [raid6] [raid5] [raid4] |
50 |
> md3 : active raid6 sdb3[9] sdf3[5] sde3[6] sdd3[7] sdc3[8] |
51 |
> 1452264480 blocks super 1.2 level 6, 16k chunk, algorithm 2 [5/5] |
52 |
> [UUUUU] |
53 |
> |
54 |
> unused devices: <none> |
55 |
> c2RAID6 ~ # |
56 |
> |
57 |
> As I understand one of your earlier responses I think you are using |
58 |
> 4K sector drives, which again has that extra level of complexity in |
59 |
> terms of creating the partitions initially, but after that should be |
60 |
> fairly straight forward to use. (I think) That said there are |
61 |
> trade-offs between RAID5 & RAID6 but have you measured speeds using |
62 |
> anything like the dd method I posted yesterday, or any other way that |
63 |
> we could compare? |
64 |
> |
65 |
> As I think Duncan asked about storage usage requirements in another |
66 |
> part of this thread I'll just document it here. The machine serves |
67 |
> main 3 purposes for me: |
68 |
> |
69 |
> 1) It's my day in, day out desktop. I run almostly totally Gentoo |
70 |
> 64-bit stable unless I need to keyword a package to get what I need. |
71 |
> Over time I tend to let my keyworded packages go stable if they are |
72 |
> working for me. The overall storage requirements for this, including |
73 |
> my home directory, typically don't run over 50GB. |
74 |
> |
75 |
> 2) The machine runs 3 Windows VMs every day - 2 Win 7 & 1 Win XP. |
76 |
> Total storage for the basic VMs is about 150GB. XP is just for things |
77 |
> like NetFlix. These 3 VMs typically have allocated 9 cores allocated |
78 |
> to them (6+2+1) leaving 3 for Gentoo to run the hardware, etc. The 6 |
79 |
> core VM is often using 80-100% of its CPUs sustained for times. (hours |
80 |
> to days.) It's doing a lot of stock market math... |
81 |
> |
82 |
> 3) More recently, and really the reason to consolidate into a single |
83 |
> RAID of any type, I have about 900GB of mp4s which has been on an |
84 |
> external USB drive, and backed up to a second USB drive. However this |
85 |
> is mostly storage. We watch most of this video on the TV using the |
86 |
> second copy drive hooked directly to the TV or copied onto Kindles. |
87 |
> I've been having to keep multiple backups of this outside the machine |
88 |
> (poor man's RAID1 - two separate USB drives hooked up one at a time!) |
89 |
> ;-) I'd rather just keep it safe on the RAID 6, That said, I've not |
90 |
> yet put it on the RAID6 as I have these performance issues I'd like to |
91 |
> solve first. (If possible. Duncan is making me worry that they cannot |
92 |
> be solved...) |
93 |
> |
94 |
> Lastly, even if I completely buy into Duncan's well formed reasons |
95 |
> about why RAID1 might be faster, using 500GB drives I see no single |
96 |
> RAID solution for me other than RAID5/6. The real RAID1/RAID6 |
97 |
> comparison from a storage standpoint would be a (conceptual) 3-drive |
98 |
> RAID6 vs 3 drive RAID1. Both create 500GB of storage and can |
99 |
> (conceptually) lose 2 drives and still recover data. However adding |
100 |
> another drive to the RAID1 gains you more speed but no storage (buying |
101 |
> into Duncan's points) vs adding storage to the RAID6 and probably |
102 |
> reducing speed. As I need storage what other choices do I have? |
103 |
> |
104 |
> Answering myself, take the 5 drives, create two RAIDS - a 500GB |
105 |
> 2-drive RAID1 for the system + VMs, and then a 3-drive RAID5 for video |
106 |
> data maybe? I don't know... |
107 |
> |
108 |
> Or buy more hardware and do a 2 drive SSD RAID1 for the system, or |
109 |
> a hardware RAID controller, etc. The options explode if I start buying |
110 |
> more hardware. |
111 |
> |
112 |
> Also, THANKS TO EVERYONE for the continued conversation. |
113 |
> |
114 |
> Cheers, |
115 |
> Mark |
116 |
> |
117 |
> |