amuck-landowner

Raid array verification

Virtovo

New Member
Verified Provider
Granted, I've never run an 8 disk array before (generally four or twelve).  If anyone has an experience of an 8 disk raid 10 array, what kind of speeds would you expect to see from the misguided but widely accepted DD test?

Spec of the array:

8 x WD RE4 2TB

LSI 9621-8i

I would have expected to be able to plot an 8 disk array on a line between the four and twelve disk array.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Virtovo

New Member
Verified Provider
That card doesn't have a cache. It's a pretty low-end card so you are probably hitting its limits. For better results use a real RAID card like 9260.
I was referring to Disk cache enabled.  Card has 512mb cache.  9261 is AFAIK pretty much the same as 9260 except a different board layout.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

ndelaespada

Member
Verified Provider
I have a server with a p400 (which is old and only has 256mb cache) with 4x1tb and I get 250mb/s.. so if you're getting only 300mb/s out of 8 disks in raid 10 you really need to consider another raid controller, better hds may also help improve i/o speed
 

Virtovo

New Member
Verified Provider
I have a server with a p400 (which is old and only has 256mb cache) with 4x1tb and I get 250mb/s.. so if you're getting only 300mb/s out of 8 disks in raid 10 you really need to consider another raid controller, better hds may also help improve i/o speed
Which is exactly why the results were confusing as I can push just under 300mb/s on a four disk H/W raid 10 array or just under 250mb/s on a four disk S/W raid 10 array.

I know the 9261 is not up there with the likes of a 9271; however I certainly wouldn't consider a 9261 a low end raid card.  Also WD RE4s aren't the latest a greatest now, but again no slouches either.  
 

serverian

Well-Known Member
Verified Provider
I was referring to Disk cache enabled.  Card has 512mb cache.  9261 is AFAIK pretty much the same as 9260 except a different board layout.
Oh, you have written 9621-8i instead of 9261-8i on your post. That's why I got confused. Run this command:

dd if=/dev/zero of=test bs=64k count=7k conv=fdatasync; unlink test
 

Virtovo

New Member
Verified Provider
Oh, you have written 9621-8i instead of 9261-8i on your post. That's why I got confused. Run this command:

dd if=/dev/zero of=test bs=64k count=7k conv=fdatasync; unlink test
Ahh, total typo there, thanks for pointing it out.  It is indeed a 9261.  

Code:
dd if=/dev/zero of=test bs=64k count=7k conv=fdatasync; unlink test
7168+0 records in
7168+0 records out
469762048 bytes (470 MB) copied, 1.34486 s, 349 MB/s
 
Last edited by a moderator:

serverian

Well-Known Member
Verified Provider
Ahh, total typo there, thanks for pointing it out.  It is indeed a 9261.  


dd if=/dev/zero of=test bs=64k count=7k conv=fdatasync; unlink test
7168+0 records in
7168+0 records out
469762048 bytes (470 MB) copied, 1.34486 s, 349 MB/s
So, even it's hitting the 100% cache, it's still slow. I don't have experience with that specific card. I'd ask the DC is that's what they usually get with that setup.
 

Virtovo

New Member
Verified Provider
So, even it's hitting the 100% cache, it's still slow. I don't have experience with that specific card. I'd ask the DC is that's what they usually get with that setup.
They are saying that sub 300 is normal; however based on my experience with other cards and different configs it can't be the case.  I can push around the 300 mark on a four disk array on a lesser card.  This should show a linear increase in performance (doubled), which is why I was puzzled.  I just wanted to see if anyone had any experience with an 8 disk array as I don't directly so can't quote actual numbers to the DC.
 

serverian

Well-Known Member
Verified Provider
They are saying that sub 300 is normal; however based on my experience with other cards and different configs it can't be the case.  I can push around the 300 mark on a four disk array on a lesser card.  This should show a linear increase in performance (doubled), which is why I was puzzled.  I just wanted to see if anyone had any experience with an 8 disk array as I don't directly so can't quote actual numbers to the DC.
8 x Seagate ES.3 RAID10 on LSI 9271-8i:

1073741824 bytes (1.1 GB) copied, 1.52601 s, 704 MB/s
 

Virtovo

New Member
Verified Provider
8 x Seagate ES.3 RAID10 on LSI 9271-8i:

1073741824 bytes (1.1 GB) copied, 1.52601 s, 704 MB/s
Well I was expecting around 600-650 from this setup.  The ES.3 are superior drives and obviously the 9271 is a superior card so that makes sense with your result.  Did you do anything special to the filesystem beyond general alignment and read-ahead?
 

serverian

Well-Known Member
Verified Provider
Well I was expecting around 600-650 from this setup.  The ES.3 are superior drives and obviously the 9271 is a superior card so that makes sense with your result.  Did you do anything special to the filesystem beyond general alignment and read-ahead?
All default settings.
 

Virtovo

New Member
Verified Provider
Well even with trying some things I've seen in the past to cause this (such as switching the GEN3 PCIE slots to GEN2 and adjusting PCIE timings) I'm still unable to get anything better.  I've let the company know and they will be looking into it Monday.  I'll update this thread with any solution as it may server as a reference for others in the future. 
 

Patrick

INIZ.COM
Verified Provider
You should be getting double, with 4x1TB RE4s we were getting 300 mb/s with LSI 9260-4i. 

I can take a look for you if you want, PM me over your Skype or msg me on IRC :)
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Virtovo

New Member
Verified Provider
You should be getting double, with 4x1TB RE4s we were getting 300 mb/s with LSI 9260-4i. 

I can take a look for you if you want, PM me over your Skype or msg me on IRC :)
It was my thinking too.  I appreciate the offer Patrick.  I've checked everything I can possibly think of and have now handed it back over to the server provider who are giving it the once over, re-configuring RAID and doing an OS install themselves.

If this heads nowhere, I'll shoot you a PM. Again, I appreciate the interest!
 
Top
amuck-landowner