raid 5 : partitioned array VS lvm
Hello,
Lately I tried some different configurations (lvm & partition) to divide my raid
5 array.
I noticed that partitioning the array was resulting in far better performances
than using lvm.
I have the following configuration :
-------------------------
# mdadm --detail /dev/md0
/dev/md0:
Version : 00.90.03
Creation Time : Sun Sep 23 12:29:14 2007
Raid Level : raid5
Array Size : 1435825152 (1369.31 GiB 1470.28 GB)
Device Size : 478608384 (456.44 GiB 490.09 GB)
Raid Devices : 4
Total Devices : 4
Preferred Minor : 0
Persistence : Superblock is persistent
Update Time : Thu Oct 18 22:42:12 2007
State : clean
Active Devices : 4
Working Devices : 4
Failed Devices : 0
Spare Devices : 0
Layout : left-symmetric
Chunk Size : 128K
UUID : 0d69d64b:89ec4fb0:e4564657:5e4ed718
Events : 0.80
Number Major Minor RaidDevice State
0 8 3 0 active sync /dev/sda3
1 8 19 1 active sync /dev/sdb3
2 8 35 2 active sync /dev/sdc3
3 8 51 3 active sync /dev/sdd3
-------------------------
I tried a lot of different configurations when I made my logical volumes,
but none worked better. I don't know could be wrong.
Here are my benchmarks :
-------------------------
# dd if=/dev/md0 of=/dev/null bs=100M count=20
20+0 records in
20+0 records out
2097152000 bytes (2.1 GB) copied, 9.58494 seconds, 219 MB/s
dd if=/dev/raidvol1/data1 of=/dev/null bs=100M count=20
20+0 records in
20+0 records out
2097152000 bytes (2.1 GB) copied, 12.396 seconds, 169 MB/s
# dd if=/dev/raidvol1/data2 of=/dev/null bs=100M count=20
20+0 records in
20+0 records out
2097152000 bytes (2.1 GB) copied, 13.4758 seconds, 156 MB/s
# dd if=/dev/raidvol1/home1 of=/dev/null bs=100M count=20
20+0 records in
20+0 records out
2097152000 bytes (2.1 GB) copied, 17.7541 seconds, 118 MB/s
-------------------------
If I use a partitioned array, then I get the best performances (same than
/dev/md0 : about 220MB/s). With LVM, it has been impossible to get more than
170MB/s in "any" configuration.
I'm not quite sure why I'm getting these results. Any ideas about
what could be wrong, or what to look for?
Thanks in advance,
Fabien
Reply to: