Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Sun, 8 Nov 1998 06:30:17 -0500 (EST)
From:      Bill Vermillion <bill@bilver.magicnet.net>
To:        grog@lemis.com (Greg Lehey)
Cc:        freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.ORG
Subject:   Re: RAID1 Software vs Hardware
Message-ID:  <199811081130.GAA21734@bilver.magicnet.net>
In-Reply-To: <19981108094916.T499@freebie.lemis.com> from Greg Lehey at "Nov 8, 98 09:49:16 am"

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Greg Lehey recently said:

> On Saturday, 7 November 1998 at 8:31:26 -0500, Bill Vermillion
> wrote:
>
> > Greg Lehey recently said:
> >
> >> On Friday, 6 November 1998 at 19:42:15 -0500, Bill Vermillion
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Christopher Nielsen recently said:

> >>>> Your really not going to see very good performance with RAID
> >>>> if you're using only two spindles (i.e., discs). ...

> >>> I've found that I get a 50% throughput increase (typical)when
> >>> running RAID 0 with 2 drives.

> >> That's what theory would tell you.

> > No - not theory. Measured in real-life - running HW raid 0 - on
> > a clients SCO system. We needed more speed. It may be slightly
> > under 50% - but it's darn close.

> Theory would tell you 50%. Practice shows it's darn close. If I
> had said "yes, that's what happens", somebody would have looked
> from the other perspective and said "not quite".

> > I have timed the same drive on SCO and FreeBSD - a 9GB 'cudda,
> > and the raw SCO performance through the file-system is in the
> > 3MB/min range, while using the FreeBSD file-system - as shipped
> > - no mods, etc,. it is between 2 and 3 times faster than SCO's.

> Which operating system?

FreeBSD 2.5 versus SCO Opensever 5.0.4.    I don't know whether it
part of this can be contritubted to FreeBSD's synchronous writes,
or whether it is all file system implementation dependant.

The drive was on loan to a customer.  They had a pair of old 4GB
'cuddas (slower than current drives), and lost a drive.  I borrowed
a 9GB 'cudda about 1230 AM and had them running.

I used iozone the next week when the new 4GB returned.  What
surpsied me was that the older pair of 4GB in a RAID 0 were slower
than the single 9GB - but only by about 200K/sec.   The specs on
the different models accounted for that.   Individually the 2 older
4GBs were about 1/3 slower but were about the same in RAID 0.

> > They current have 6 classes - 0 thru 5 - and there is a chart
> > in Adaptec's book on I/O subsytems listing the pro's'/con's of
> > each. RAID2/3/4 aren't used, and from what I've seen drives that
> > use to have spindle sync for byte/sector striping aren't being
> > made anymore. But with drives now at 20MB/sec+ speeds, the old
> > needs are gone.

> Correct. You'd be surprised how many products offer RAID-2/3/4,
> though. I think the product manager got a checklist to tick off. I
> have deliberately left these three out of Vinum.

A more correct choice of words should have been "raid-2/3/4" are
commonly used.  I seem to recall the spindle sync is not in the
neweset 'cuddas and Cheetahs, while it was in the earilier 'cuddas.

> >>> but it will boost the read throughput if different files are
> >>> being accessed, just as if you load balanced multiple single
> >>> disks..

> >> BTW, ccd always reads from the same copy of the data, so this
> >> doesn't work. But in principle you're right.

> >
> > Reading from two disks for different files is one of the touted
> > features of most HW implementations.

> Put it this way, I don't know of any other implementation, SW or
> HW, which is this primitive. ...

You are speaking of 'ccd' when you make this statement?  I trimmed
previous posters quotes - and I believe the ccd comment came from
you.   I also think that is primitive.  Doing that make the drive
act like only a backup device.

> Vinum has a choice of round robin (default) or always reading from
> a specific drive (which can be an advantage if you have a ramdisk,
> for example).

Yup.  I can't see much use for a RAID in RAM. :-)

Bill

To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-fs" in the body of the message



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199811081130.GAA21734>