Re: [gentoo-amd64] Is my RAID performance bad possibly due to starting sector value?

[B Vance <anonymous.pseudonym.88@gmail.com>]

On Thu, 2013-06-20 at 12:10 -0700, Mark Knecht wrote:
> Hi,
>    Does anyone know of info on how the starting sector number might
> impact RAID performance under Gentoo? The drives are WD-500G RE3
> drives shown here:
> 
> http://www.amazon.com/Western-Digital-WD5002ABYS-3-5-inch-Enterprise/dp/B001EMZPD0/ref=cm_cr_pr_product_top
> 
>    These are NOT 4k sector sized drives.
> 
>    Specifically I'm a 5-drive RAID6 for about 1.45TB of storage. My
> benchmarking seems abysmal at around 40MB/S using dd copying large
> files. It's higher, around 80MB/S if the file being transferred is
> coming from an SSD, but even 80MB/S seems slow to me. I see a LOT of
> wait time in top. And my 'large file' copies might not be large enough
> as the machine has 24GB of DRAM and I've only been copying 21GB so
> it's possible some of that is cached.
> 
>    Then I looked again at how I partitioned the drives originally and
> see the starting sector of sector 3 as 8594775. I started wondering if
> something like 4K block sizes at the file system level might be
> getting munged across 16k chunk sizes in the RAID. Maybe the blocks
> are being torn apart in bad ways for performance? That led me down a
> bunch of rabbit holes and I haven't found any light yet.
> 
>    Looking for some thoughtful ideas from those more experienced in this area.
> 
> Cheers,
> Mark
> 

Not necessarily the kind of answer you are looking for, but a year or so
back I converted my NAS from Hardware RAID1 to  linux software RAID1 to
RAID1 on ZFS.  Before the conversion to ZFS I had issues with the NAS
being unable to keep up with requests.  Since then I have been able to
hit the SAN relatively hard with no visible effects.  Just to give an
idea, a normal load involves streaming an HD movie to the TV, streaming
music to a second system, being used as the shared storage for four
computers, two of which almost constantly hit the shared drive for data
(keep the distfile directory for all the systems on it as well as using
it as the local rsync) , and once a month, transferring data to
removable storage devices.  All of this going over cat6 Ethernet and
occasionally USB2.  

I'm unsure how I would go about measuring the throughput, mainly because
I never cared in the past as long as the files transferred at a
reasonable pace and the video/audio didn't stutter.  By no means is my
NAS a high-end system.  It's stats are:

AMD64 X2, 4200
ASUS A8V MoBo (I think)
4GB RAM
2 x Silicon Image Sil 3114 SATA RAID cards (4 port PCI cards)
3 x 1.5TB Seagate drives (on Raid Cards)
4 x 2TB Western Digital drives (On Raid Cards)
2 x Western Digital antique 80GB drives (mirrored on motherboard for OS)
Marvell GigE network cards (Have a second card to add once I figure how
to automatically load balance through two cards)
Case with 2 x 120mm fans on top, 3 x 120mm fans on the front, 1 x 240mm
fan on the side
Total storage available 6.3TB, of which 3.4TB is used.
An image of the pool is created on a daily basis via cron jobs, which
are overwritten every 3 days. (Image of Day 1, Day 2, Day 3 then Day 4
overwrites Day 1.)The pool started with 5 750GB drives and has been
grown slowly as I find deals on better drives.  

Main advantage of using ZFS on linux is the ease of growing your pools.
As long as you know the id of the drive (preferably the hardware id not
the delegated one), its so simple I can manage it.  Since I'm nowhere
near the technical level of most folk here, anyone can do it.  For what
it's worth (very little I know), I think that ZFS has too many
advantages over linux software RAID for it to be a real competition.

YMMV

B. Vance