- Community Home
- >
- Storage
- >
- Entry Storage Systems
- >
- Disk Enclosures
- >
- raid5 performance
Categories
Company
Local Language
Forums
Discussions
Forums
- Data Protection and Retention
- Entry Storage Systems
- Legacy
- Midrange and Enterprise Storage
- Storage Networking
- HPE Nimble Storage
Discussions
Discussions
Discussions
Forums
Forums
Discussions
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
- BladeSystem Infrastructure and Application Solutions
- Appliance Servers
- Alpha Servers
- BackOffice Products
- Internet Products
- HPE 9000 and HPE e3000 Servers
- Networking
- Netservers
- Secure OS Software for Linux
- Server Management (Insight Manager 7)
- Windows Server 2003
- Operating System - Tru64 Unix
- ProLiant Deployment and Provisioning
- Linux-Based Community / Regional
- Microsoft System Center Integration
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Community
Resources
Forums
Blogs
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Mark Topic as New
- Mark Topic as Read
- Float this Topic for Current User
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Printer Friendly Page
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
тАО06-29-2008 10:26 PM
тАО06-29-2008 10:26 PM
raid5 performance
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
тАО06-30-2008 01:59 AM
тАО06-30-2008 01:59 AM
Re: raid5 performance
You are testing sequential write performance of the solution, is that what you want to test ?
Raid 5 write performance will be slower because of the parity calculation cycles that RAID 5 has to go through. If write perfromance is what your application needs then stick to RAID1
Cache does not help you either here I think as you are doing a sequential data test.
Does you application use 1M blocks as well ? If not, try matching the test blocksize to what you application will use.
best regards,
-Eric
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
тАО07-01-2008 12:22 AM
тАО07-01-2008 12:22 AM
Re: raid5 performance
[TG] That's the first test I managed to run. Others will follow. But this one provides a nice comparision between one disk and RAID.
Raid 5 write performance will be slower because of the parity calculation cycles that RAID 5 has to go through. If write perfromance is what your application needs then stick to RAID1
[TG] Ok, I understand that RAID5 needs extra computations but to slow the disk access 7 times is just ridiculous for a hardware array controller.
And in theory RAID1 should affect performance only slightly and not cut transfer almost in half.
Does you application use 1M blocks as well ? If not, try matching the test blocksize to what you application will use.
[TG] The dd test uses 1M blocks. The actual applications will have various characteristics when it comes to disk access.
[TG] The main question is: is this normal for this controller? Maybe I did something wrong with array setup? Maybe one disk is at fault (I haven't checked all of them separately yet)? Maybe one of the cables is wrong? So once again: what is the expected performance of this controller in relation to single disk performance.
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
тАО07-01-2008 12:37 AM
тАО07-01-2008 12:37 AM
Re: raid5 performance
I do not know if this is normal behavior for this controller. I do not have one of these.
Then again, there may be other issues at hand. Are you using using a cable with twisted pairs or just a flat ribbon cable ? Is there termination at the end of the SCSI chain, etc. Are there code updates for the disks, etc, ect. This all depends on how you set the configuration up on your machine.
hth,
-Eric
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
тАО07-01-2008 12:48 AM
тАО07-01-2008 12:48 AM
Re: raid5 performance
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
тАО07-01-2008 03:49 AM
тАО07-01-2008 03:49 AM
Re: raid5 performance
What kind of disk (Ultra3 , ultra320?) and with what SCSI controller?
What kind of disks do you have connected on the 431? The 431 is a single bus controller so any of the disks in the bus will run at the speed of the slowest disk. This controller came out at aroung 2000 so 8 years later I would not expect much from it.
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
тАО07-01-2008 05:06 AM
тАО07-01-2008 05:06 AM
Re: raid5 performance
What kind of disk (Ultra3 , ultra320?) and with what SCSI controller?
What kind of disks do you have connected on the 431?
[TG] That same Compaq Smart Array 431 and I believe Ultra160 disks (not sure now) on all the tests.
The 431 is a single bus controller so any of the disks in the bus will run at the speed of the slowest disk.
[TG] All the disks are supposed to be the same so all of them should sustain 70MB/s write speed. I'll check if that indeed is the case.
This controller came out at aroung 2000 so 8 years later I would not expect much from it.
[TG] I know it's not new. What is highly suspicious is the fact that transfer rate drops 7 times. Even 8 years ago it would be unacceptable for me. In fact I was very surprised that the disks are so fast. But the controller is a disappointment for me.
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
тАО07-01-2008 07:54 AM
тАО07-01-2008 07:54 AM
Re: raid5 performance
The SA431 run Wide Ultra 3 speed = 160 MB/sec
When mixing WU2, WU3 and WU320, unites will run at their native speed, but not faster than the speed of the controller.
If You connect a Wide Ultra device, the entire bus will fallover to WU speed = 40 MB/sec.
If you don't use the correct twisted pair cable, then i won't work at all (For sure if you are using the hot plug drive cages).
Write perfomance is slow on RAID 5.
If you got a 3 drive RAID 5, and you if you write 1 chubk only.
Then the controller has to read, the old parity, and the data of the other disk. modify the parity, write new data and new parity.
With 5 disks:
Read
Read
Read
Read
Modify
Write
Write
This is known as the write penalty.
The Smart Array controllers is known to be faster than its competitors. And is faster than software RAID, for sure.
RAID 1 should give you the write performance of the slowest disk, and the read performance of the fastest disk, or faster.
I'm sorry, I can't pinpoint where you're problem is.
I have seen slow perfomance from a Smart Array, only once. And reinstalling the OS (Windows) fixed it.
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
тАО07-01-2008 07:55 AM
тАО07-01-2008 07:55 AM
Re: raid5 performance
http://h18004.www1.hp.com/products/servers/proliantstorage/arraycontrollers/smartarray431/questionsanswers.html
"Q14. Does the SA-431 support write-back cache?
A14. No, Compaq believes that data integrity is the most important feature of any of our array controller products. Write-back cache is vulnerable to power drops. With higher-end Compaq array controllers (e.g., the SA-5300, SA-and SA-4250 ES), write-back cache is protected by a unique removable battery backed cache daughter board. Since this is a costly feature to implement, standard with higher end array controllers, the SA-431 does not support battery backed write-back cache."
So every write has to go out there... and be waited for. And for a raid 0+1 you will be waiting for both transfers to complete, each competing for the scsi bus. the controller might even be transferrig from the OS buffer twice.
The raid-5 performance suggests that the controller failed to recognize whole-chunk writes and those had to read the old data first before it can calculate the new parity. That would be a super slow down.
1) receive new 2) read old data 3) read old parity 4) calculate new parity) 5) write new data 6) write new data 7) tell OS to send more.
You may want to look for flag/switch in the ACU to overwrite enabling write-back cache... but just 16MB will not last too long.
You may want to retry with a smaller, more application typical write blcok size (try 64K, 128K and 256K?)
You may want to focus on some, repeatable, application based benchmark.
I see many applications with 90% or more reads, and those might just be happy with the raid-5 and very happy with 0+1
hth,
Hein.
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
тАО07-04-2008 12:38 PM
тАО07-04-2008 12:38 PM