mohitanchlia at gmail.com
Fri May 13 22:17:17 UTC 2011
I got new card with 512MB cache. But the current setting is:
Current Cache Policy: WriteThrough, ReadAheadNone, Direct, No Write
Cache if Bad BBU
Does it make sense to enable ReadAhead? I was jus tgoing to change write policy.
On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 4:31 PM, Joe Landman
<landman at scalableinformatics.com> wrote:
> On 04/26/2011 05:48 PM, Mohit Anchlia wrote:
>> I am not sure how valid this performance url is
>> Does it make sense to separate out the journal and create mkfs -I 256?
>> Also, if I already have a file system on a different partition can I
>> still use it to store journal from other partition without corrupting
>> the file system?
> Journals are small write heavy. You really want a raw device for them. You
> do not want file system caching underneath them.
> Raw partition for an external journal is best. Also, understand that ext*
> suffers badly under intense parallel loads. Keep that in mind as you make
> your file system choice.
>> On Thu, Apr 21, 2011 at 7:23 PM, Joe Landman
>> <landman at scalableinformatics.com> wrote:
>>> On 04/21/2011 08:49 PM, Mohit Anchlia wrote:
>>>> After lot of digging today finaly figured out that it's not really
>>>> using PERC controller but some Fusion MPT. Then it wasn't clear which
>>> PERC is a rebadged LSI based on the 1068E chip.
>>>> tool it supports. Finally I installed lsiutil and was able to change
>>>> the cache size.
>>>> [root at dsdb1 ~]# lspci|grep LSI
>>>> 02:00.0 SCSI storage controller: LSI Logic / Symbios Logic SAS1068E
>>>> PCI-Express Fusion-MPT SAS (rev 08)
>>> This looks like PERC. These are roughly equivalent to the LSI 3081
>>> These are not fast units. There is a variant of this that does RAID6,
>>> usually available as a software update or plugin module (button?) to
>>> I might be thinking of the 1078 chip though.
>>> Regardless, these are fairly old designs.
>>>> [root at dsdb1 ~]# dd if=/dev/zero of=/data/big.file bs=128k count=40k
>>>> 1024+0 records in
>>>> 1024+0 records out
>>>> 134217728 bytes (134 MB) copied, 0.742517 seconds, 181 MB/s
>>>> I compared this with SW RAID mdadm that I created yesterday on one of
>>>> the servers and I get around 300MB/s. I will test out first with what
>>>> we have before destroying and testing with mdadm.
>>> So the software RAID is giving you 300 MB/s and the hardware 'RAID' is
>>> giving you ~181 MB/s? Seems a pretty simple choice :)
>>> BTW: The 300MB/s could also be a limitation of the PCIe channel
>>> (or worse, if they hung the chip off a PCIx bridge). The motherboard
>>> vendors are generally loathe to put more than a few PCIe lanes for
>>> SATA, Networking, etc. So typically you wind up with very low powered
>>> 'RAID' and 'SATA/SAS' on the motherboard, connected by PCIe x2 or x4 at
>>> most. A number of motherboards have NICs that are served by a single
>>> x1 link.
>>>> Thanks for your help that led me to this path. Another question I had
>>>> was when creating mdadm RAID does it make sense to use multipathing?
>>> Well, for a shared backend over a fabric, I'd say possibly. For an
>>> connected set, I'd say no. Given what you are doing with Gluster, I'd
>>> that the additional expense/pain of setting up a multipath scenario
>>> isn't worth it.
>>> Gluster lets you get many of these benefits at a higher level in the
>>> Which to a degree, and in some use cases, obviates the need for
>>> multipathing at a lower level. I'd still suggest real RAID at the lower
>>> level (RAID6, and sometimes RAID10 make the most sense) for the backing
>>> Joseph Landman, Ph.D
>>> Founder and CEO
>>> Scalable Informatics, Inc.
>>> email: landman at scalableinformatics.com
>>> web : http://scalableinformatics.com
>>> phone: +1 734 786 8423 x121
>>> fax : +1 866 888 3112
>>> cell : +1 734 612 4615
> Joseph Landman, Ph.D
> Founder and CEO
> Scalable Informatics, Inc.
> email: landman at scalableinformatics.com
> web : http://scalableinformatics.com
> phone: +1 734 786 8423 x121
> fax : +1 866 888 3112
> cell : +1 734 612 4615
More information about the Gluster-users