Skip to main content

io - Acceptable I/O speeds for 6 x 250GB SSDs in RAID 10

itemprop="text">

I'm running CentOS 7 (XFS filesystem)
on a dell server with a PERC H700 raid controller. Inside this server I have 6 x Samsung
850 Evo 250GB SSDs (yes they are consumer drives however, this is a home server. In any
case, I performed a DD test and am getting speeds of around 550MB/s which would be the
approximate write speed of a single SSD yet these drives are in RAID 10.... where one
would expect more.



Output of a
write
test:



[root@localhost]
sync; dd if=/dev/zero of=tempfile bs=1M count=1024; sync
1024+0 records
in
1024+0 records out

1073741824 bytes (1.1 GB) copied,
1.95942 s, 548
MB/s


Output
of a read
test:



[root@localhost]#
dd if=tempfile of=/dev/null bs=1M count=1024
1024+0 records
in
1024+0 records out
1073741824 bytes (1.1 GB) copied, 0.171463 s,
6.3
GB/s



Would
anyone be able to shed some light on this situation as to whether this is an acceptable
write speed? I'm rather puzzled as to what to do here.
Appreciate your help
:)



Answer




href="https://serverfault.com/a/431456/13325">I could close this as a
duplicate because there are a lot of factors that impact storage performance
in Linux.



I think people have the wrong idea
when they attempt to benchmark SSD performance. You should use SSDs for better random
I/O performance. You're testing big-block sequential performance, which doesn't match
any sort of use case except for, um, copying large
files.




  • Throughput:
    Maximum bandwidth (likely sequential) of the
    array.


  • IOPS: How
    many I/O operations per second the array is capable
    of.

  • Latency: How quickly the
    storage subsystem can service your I/O
    requests.



The last two
are what matter in most cases. Add to this the fact that you're using a RAID controller,
there is an element of caching at play. Also, XFS and Linux cache I/O, so you need to
know what you're testing.



I'd suggest using a
purpose-built tool like fio, iozone or
even bonnie++ to run a proper set of
benchmarks.



Also see: href="https://serverfault.com/questions/431437/hp-p410-raid-samsung-830-ssds-debian-6-0-what-performance-to-expect/431456#431456">HP
P410 RAID + Samsung 830 SSDs + Debian 6.0 - What performance to
expect?


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

linux - iDRAC6 Virtual Media native library cannot be loaded

When attempting to mount Virtual Media on a iDRAC6 IP KVM session I get the following error: I'm using Ubuntu 9.04 and: $ javaws -version Java(TM) Web Start 1.6.0_16 $ uname -a Linux aud22419-linux 2.6.28-15-generic #51-Ubuntu SMP Mon Aug 31 13:39:06 UTC 2009 x86_64 GNU/Linux $ firefox -version Mozilla Firefox 3.0.14, Copyright (c) 1998 - 2009 mozilla.org On Windows + IE it (unsurprisingly) works. I've just gotten off the phone with the Dell tech support and I was told it is known to work on Linux + Firefox, albeit Ubuntu is not supported (by Dell, that is). Has anyone out there managed to mount virtual media in the same scenario?

hp proliant - Smart Array P822 with HBA Mode?

We get an HP DL360 G8 with an Smart Array P822 controller. On that controller will come a HP StorageWorks D2700 . Does anybody know, that it is possible to run the Smart Array P822 in HBA mode? I found only information about the P410i, who can run HBA. If this is not supported, what you think about the LSI 9207-8e controller? Will this fit good in that setup? The Hardware we get is used but all original from HP. The StorageWorks has 25 x 900 GB SAS 10K disks. Because the disks are not new I would like to use only 22 for raid6, and the rest for spare (I need to see if the disk count is optimal or not for zfs). It would be nice if I'm not stick to SAS in future. As OS I would like to install debian stretch with zfs 0.71 as file system and software raid. I have see that hp has an page for debian to. I would like to use hba mode because it is recommend, that zfs know at most as possible about the disk, and I'm independent from the raid controller. For us zfs have many benefits,

apache 2.2 - Server Potentially Compromised -- c99madshell

So, low and behold, a legacy site we've been hosting for a client had a version of FCKEditor that allowed someone to upload the dreaded c99madshell exploit onto our web host. I'm not a big security buff -- frankly I'm just a dev currently responsible for S/A duties due to a loss of personnel. Accordingly, I'd love any help you server-faulters could provide in assessing the damage from the exploit. To give you a bit of information: The file was uploaded into a directory within the webroot, "/_img/fck_uploads/File/". The Apache user and group are restricted such that they can't log in and don't have permissions outside of the directory from which we serve sites. All the files had 770 permissions (user rwx, group rwx, other none) -- something I wanted to fix but was told to hold off on as it wasn't "high priority" (hopefully this changes that). So it seems the hackers could've easily executed the script. Now I wasn't able