Re: RAID-0 with LVM - is there any point?

6 msg	The next step in AV
6 msg	which package?
17 msg	fcron
1 msg	fontconfig causes segment faults!
11 msg	[OT DNS] common way to discover nameservers for...
4 msg	headphones don't work since upgrade to kernel 2...
18 msg	Can I share my /boot and swap partitions with o...
3 msg	eclean doesn't clean
2 msg	emerge-webrsync errors
3 msg	update-eix error message
8 msg	How to resolve policy conflicts?

RAID-0 with LVM - is there any point?
\ Neil Bothwick (1 Apr 2007)
. \ Daniel Iliev (3 Apr 2007)
. . \ Neil Bothwick (3 Apr 2007)
. . . \ Daniel Iliev (5 Apr 2007)
. . . . \ Neil Bothwick (5 Apr 2007)
. . . . . \ Daniel Iliev (5 Apr 2007)
. . . . . . \ Daniel Iliev (5 Apr 2007)
. . . . . . . \ Neil Bothwick (8 Apr 2007)
. . . . \ Bryan Whitehead (16 Apr 2007)

1 msg	Flourish Conference Reminder
2 msg	cyrus-imapd not working after recompile against...
11 msg	Accessibility, or, Purple writing on black is a...
16 msg	netfilter tarpit target
4 msg	depscan.sh?
1 msg	xterm settings with utf-8 unicode
4 msg	Bitten by bug #172860
8 msg	Ridiculous amount of borkage in portage

Subject:	Re: RAID-0 with LVM - is there any point?
Group:	Gentoo-user
From:	Bryan Whitehead
Date:	16 Apr 2007

I think you need to try running a real benchmark like bonnie++ against both.

For example, you run "time dd" but you don't include the "sync" in the
time...

Daniel Iliev wrote:

>Neil Bothwick wrote:
>
>
>>Hello Daniel Iliev,
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>Actually I'd be glad to read some results from a "Fake RAID-0 vs LVM"
>>>tests. My bet would be that RAID-0 w/o LVM would give the best speeds
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>Omitting LVM isn't an option, I'd lose all the flexibility that LVM
>>offers. I don't see why RAID-0 should be necessarily more efficient than
>>LVM, unless there's something superior about RAID-0's striping
>>algorithms. I could do some before and after tests, but I'd first have the
>>reformat the filesystems to remove any effects of fragmentation.
>>
>>If no one comes up with a good reason for keeping the RAID, I'll get rid
>>of it, running bonnie++ before and after.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>Hi, Neil!
>
>Out of curiosity I made some tests which confirmed my expectations. What
>about you - did you have time (and wish) to take some performance
>benchmarks? I would be glad to see some additional results.
>
>I'm attaching my tests in file called "bench.txt".
>
>
>
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>echo y | mdadm -C /dev/md9 -n2 /dev/sda11 /dev/sdb11 -l0
>mkfs.xfs /dev/md9
>mkdir /test
>mount /dev/md9 /test
>dd if=/dev/urandom of=/test.rnd bs=1M count=1500
>
>time cp /test.rnd /test
>real 0m44.981s
>user 0m0.036s
>sys 0m6.967s
>
>sync
>
>time mv /test.rnd /test
>real 0m47.514s
>user 0m0.047s
>sys 0m7.077s
>
>sync
>
>time mv /test/test.rnd /
>real 0m53.863s
>user 0m0.060s
>sys 0m8.885s
>
>mdadm --stop /dev/md9
>pvcreate /dev/sda11
>pvcreate /dev/sdb11
>vgcreate test /dev/sda11
>vgextend test /dev/sdb11
>vgdisplay | grep 'Total PE'
> Total PE 1686
>lvcreate -i2 -l1686 -nlogvol test
>mkfs.xfs /dev/test/logvol
>mount /dev/test/logvol /test
>
>
>time cp /test.rnd /test
>
>real 1m12.183s
>user 0m0.039s
>sys 0m9.570s
>
>sync
>
>time mv /test.rnd /test
>
>real 0m51.643s
>user 0m0.044s
>sys 0m7.275s
>
>sync
>
>time mv /test/test.rnd /
>
>real 1m54.937s
>user 0m0.047s
>sys 0m9.556s
>
>
>=================
>BOTTOM LINE:
>
>cp /test.rnd /test
>LVM: 20.78 [MB/s]
>RAID-0: 33.41 [MB/s]
>
>mv /test.rnd /test
>LVM: 29.04[MB/s]
>RAID-0: 31.56[MB/s]
>
>mv /test/test.rnd /
>LVM: 11.11[MB/s]
>RAID-0: 27.84[MB/s]
>
>Strange: I repeated the last LVM test because it seemed to me as a low performance peak, but the result was again very low:
>time mv /test/test.rnd /
>
>real 1m27.775s
>user 0m0.050s
>sys 0m9.813s
>
>which is: 1500/87.775 = 17.089 [MB/s]
>
--
gentoo-user mailing list