From: Gabriele Turchi <gabriele.turchi@l39a.com>
To: Scott Marlowe <scott.marlowe@gmail.com>
Cc: Mario Weilguni <mweilguni@sime.com>
Cc: Alan Hodgson <ahodgson@simkin.ca>
Cc: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Experience with HP Smart Array P400 and SATA drives?
Date: Tue, 09 Dec 2008 17:03:48 +0100
Message-ID: <493E96E4.4010505@l39a.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <dcc563d10812090730h2ae6658cj5fdc2554600efd40@mail.gmail.com>
References: <4934FE60.30702@sime.com>
<49395B57.EE98.0025.0@wicourts.gov>
<200812051530.01258@hal.medialogik.com>
<493E61E1.1020303@sime.com>
<dcc563d10812090730h2ae6658cj5fdc2554600efd40@mail.gmail.com>
We reached a fairly good performance on a P400 controller (8 SATA 146GB
2,5" 10k rpm) with raid5 or raid6 Linux software raid: the writing
bandwidth reached about 140 MB/s sustained throughput (the hardware
raid5 gave a sustained 20 MB/s...). With a second, equal controller (16
disks) we reached (raid6 spanning all 16 disks) about 200 MB/s sustained.
The CPU load is negligible. Reading performance is about 20% better.
Best regards and my apologies for my bad English.
GT
P.S.: on a P800, 12 SATA 750GB 3,5" 7200 rpm, the hardware raid5 writing
performance was about 30 MB/s, software raid5 is between 60 and 80 MB/s.
Scott Marlowe ha scritto:
> On Tue, Dec 9, 2008 at 5:17 AM, Mario Weilguni <mweilguni@sime.com> wrote:
>> Alan Hodgson schrieb:
>>>>>>> Mario Weilguni <mweilguni@sime.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>> strange values. An individual drive is capable of delivering 91
>>>>> MB/sec
>>>>> sequential read performance, and we get values ~102MB/sec out of a
>>>>> 8-drive RAID5, seems to be ridiculous slow.
>>>
>>> What command are you using to test the reads?
>>>
>>> Some recommendations to try:
>>>
>>> 1) /sbin/blockdev --setra 2048 device (where device is the partition or
>>> LVM volume)
>>>
>>> 2) Use XFS, and make sure your stripe settings match the RAID.
>>>
>>> Having said that, 102MB/sec sounds really low for any modern controller
>>> with 8 drives, regardless of tuning or filesystem choice.
>>>
>>>
>> First, thanks alot for this and all the other answers.
>>
>> I measured the raw device performance:
>> dd if=/dev/cciss/c0d0 bs=64k count=100000 of=/dev/null
>>
>> I get poor performance when all 8 drives are configured as one, large
>> RAID-5, and slightly poorer performance when configured as JBOD. In
>> production, we use XFS as FS, but I doubt this has anything to do with FS
>> tuning.
>
> Yeah, having just trawled the pgsql-performance archives, there are
> plenty of instances of people having terrible performance from HP
> smart array controllers before the P800. Is it possible for you to
> trade up to a better RAID controller? Whichever salesman sold you the
> P400 should take one for the team and make this right for you.
>
Attachments:
smime.p7s (application/x-pkcs7-signature, 6.0K) download
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Cc: gabriele.turchi@l39a.com, scott.marlowe@gmail.com, mweilguni@sime.com, ahodgson@simkin.ca
Subject: Re: Experience with HP Smart Array P400 and SATA drives?
In-Reply-To: <493E96E4.4010505@l39a.com>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox