Re: [RE]Poorer performance with Raid0 then without?

"Brian Keener" <[email protected]>
Newsgroups gmane.linux.ataraid
Message-ID <[email protected]>
On my fileserver I encountered a problem where adding a third hard drive
drove my hardware interrupts (under ANY os) through the roof.  The end
result was the performance equivelant of disabling DMA on all my drives.

I have never figured out why.

Just something to check for.

On 12/31/06, James Olson <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> What is the output of hdparm /dev/hde and hdparm /dev/hdg? Especially of
> interest is whether multcount, using_dma and readahead are set to on. They
> can be automatically turned off by the kernel if there are any seek errors,
> like can happen early in the FC5 boot sequence with raid0. I have a patch to
> redhat nash to fix that if that is the case.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ---------[ Received Mail Content ]----------
>
> *Subject : *Poorer performance with Raid0 then without?
>
> *Date : *Sat, 30 Dec 2006 23:07:48 -0800
>
> *From : *"Listbox" <[email protected]>
>
> *To : *<[email protected]>
>
>
>
> Hi folks!
>
> I have been trying to use a
>
> RAID bus controller: Silicon Image, Inc. PCI0680 Ultra ATA-133 Host
>
> Controller (rev 02)
>
> to create a RAID0 workspace for MythTV, but it's not working right....
>
>
>
> I have two Seagate 160gb drives in a RAID 0 array on an SiI0680 PCI
>
> ATA raid controller. I formatted an XFS filesystem on
>
> /dev/mapper/sil_agbgdgbjfhei2,
>
> and set mythbackend to use it. ( My DVB card is a DviCO
>
> Fusion Gold 3,( Conexant CX23880).)
>
>
>
> When I watch live MythTV, I get terrible artifacts on digital TV, and slow
>
>
> frame rates on analog. When I reset mythbackend to use a ext3
>
> partition on a single drive ( /dev/hdc1 ), performance is acceptable.
>
>
>
> The RAID devices are hde and hdg, the/ partition is hdc.... to me this
> looks
>
> like all my physical drives give comparable throughput. This is what
> hdparm
>
> reports:
>
>
>
> /dev/hda:
>
> Timing cached reads: 1668 MB in 2.00 seconds = 834.10 MB/sec
>
> Timing buffered disk reads: 88 MB in 3.05 seconds = 28.87 MB/sec
>
>
>
> /dev/hde:
>
> Timing cached reads: 1680 MB in 2.00 seconds = 838.49 MB/sec
>
> Timing buffered disk reads: 168 MB in 3.03 seconds = 55.46 MB/sec
>
>
>
> /dev/hdf:
>
> Timing cached reads: 1688 MB in 2.00 seconds = 843.57 MB/sec
>
> Timing buffered disk reads: 164 MB in 3.00 seconds = 54.59 MB/sec
>
>
>
> /dev/hdg:
>
> Timing cached reads: 1696 MB in 2.00 seconds = 846.68 MB/sec
>
> Timing buffered disk reads: 162 MB in 3.03 seconds = 53.45 MB/sec
>
>
>
> I also tried upping the PCI latency of the RAID card with
>
> setpci -v -s 01:07.0 latency_timer=B0 # PCI0680 Ultra ATA-133 Host
>
> But this had no effect. The DVB card has a latency of 32(decimal).
>
>
>
> So, given the same hardware throughput, I would expect better performance
>
> with the XFS+RAID setup. This is not the case. I went to considerable
>
> trouble to get the RAID and XFS working on my Fedora 5 system, and it's
>
> pretty discouraging to see that it actually
>
> degrades instead of enhances performance.
>
>
>
> I just reformatted with ext3, and tried again, and got the same
> degradation.
>
> It's looking like the RAID is the problem, but I do not,NOT,NOT! want to
>
> un-stripe the disks.
>
>
>
> What else to try?
>
> Listbox
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> Ataraid-list mailing list
>
> [email protected]
>
> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/ataraid-list
>
>
>
>
>  ------------------------------
>
> *Free Movies* <http://cinema.lycos.com/?if_Event=mail> 100's of Free
> Feature Length Films - Meet Friends, Watch Movies & Win!
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ataraid-list mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/ataraid-list
>
>

_______________________________________________
Ataraid-list mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/ataraid-list
lmpx.com only provides a reader for public news (NNTP) servers. It is not affiliated with the servers or forums shown here and is not responsible for the content of articles, which is written by their respective authors.