From: Luke Lonergan <llonergan@greenplum.com>
To: Albert Cervera Areny <albert@sedifa.com>
To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Bad RAID1 read performance
Date: Wed, 30 May 2007 13:13:45 -0700
Message-ID: <C2832909.31C9D%llonergan@greenplum.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <200705301700.26704.albert@sedifa.com>
Albert,
On 5/30/07 8:00 AM, "Albert Cervera Areny" <albert@sedifa.com> wrote:
> Hardware isn't very good I believe, and it's about 2-3 years old, but the RAID
> is Linux software, and though not very good the difference between reading
> and writing should probably be greater... (?)
Not for one thread/process of I/O. Mirror sets can nearly double the read
performance on most RAID adapters or SW RAID when using two or more
thread/processes, but a single thread will get one drive worth of
performance.
You should try running two simultaneous processes during reading and see
what you get.
> Would you set 512Kb readahead on both drives and RAID? I tried various
> configurations and none seemed to make a big difference. It seemed correct to
> me to set 512kb per drive and 1024kb for md0.
Shouldn't matter that much, but yes, each drive getting half the readahead
is a good strategy. Try 256+256 and 512.
The problem you have is likely not related to the readahead though - I
suggest you try read/write to a single disk and see what you get. You
should get around 60 MB/s if the drive is a modern 7200 RPM SATA disk. If
you aren't getting that on a single drive, there's something wrong with the
SATA driver or the drive(s).
- Luke
> A Dimecres 30 Maig 2007 16:09, Luke Lonergan va escriure:
>> This sounds like a bad RAID controller - are you using a built-in hardware
>> RAID? If so, you will likely want to use Linux software RAID instead.
>>
>> Also - you might want to try a 512KB readahead - I've found that is optimal
>> for RAID1 on some RAID controllers.
>>
>> - Luke
>>
>> On 5/30/07 2:35 AM, "Albert Cervera Areny" <albert@sedifa.com> wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>> after doing the "dd" tests for a server we have at work I obtained:
>>> Read: 47.20 Mb/s
>>> Write: 39.82 Mb/s
>>> Some days ago read performance was around 20Mb/s due to no readahead in
>>> md0 so I modified it using hdparm. However, it seems to me that being it
>>> a RAID1 read speed could be much better. These are SATA disks with 3Gb of
>>> RAM so I did 'time bash -c "dd if=/dev/zero of=bigfile bs=8k count=786432
>>> && sync"'. File system is ext3 (if read many times in the list that XFS
>>> is faster), but I don't want to change the file system right now.
>>> Modifing the readahead from the current 1024k to 2048k doesn't make any
>>> difference. Are there any other tweaks I can make?
>>>
>>>
>>> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
>>> TIP 4: Have you searched our list archives?
>>>
>>> http://archives.postgresql.org
>>
>> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
>> TIP 6: explain analyze is your friend
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: llonergan@greenplum.com, albert@sedifa.com
Subject: Re: Bad RAID1 read performance
In-Reply-To: <C2832909.31C9D%llonergan@greenplum.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