View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
eccerr0r Watchman
Joined: 01 Jul 2004 Posts: 9775 Location: almost Mile High in the USA
|
Posted: Sat Sep 14, 2024 2:52 pm Post subject: mdraid max sync speed |
|
|
Just wondering if anyone knows anything about this:
It appears the default sync_speed_max is 200000 and it has been this way for ever since at least I'm aware of mdraid - I've been using it for probably almost 2 decades by now.
Sync_speed_max is the maximum disk bandwidth it uses to check/rebuild/repair parity blocks on a RAID. It is in KB/sec.
200,000 KB/sec or 200MB/sec still exceeds the hard drive speeds that I have, some even far, far exceeds. which means it will completely eat out all available disk bandwidth. It's not until about now where SSDs can now exceed 200MB/sec. I suspect some HDDs finally can do it now too.
Has Linux always been designed for SSDs in mind or 2024 hard drives? :D
(My fastest sequential read hard drive is around 180MB/sec now... which is still too slow and thus will be fully consumed by default resync speeds. I just wonder why this 200000 was chosen back in the days...)
Also BTW, this isn't a bad thing as resilver is important as your redundancy is unavailable during this time, at least for RAID1/RAID5. But why 200000 and not simply "whatever bandwidth is available..." as when hard disks reach 300MB/sec there's redundancy left on the table... _________________ Intel Core i7 2700K/Radeon R7 250/24GB DDR3/256GB SSD
What am I supposed watching? |
|
Back to top |
|
|
druggo Apprentice
Joined: 24 Sep 2003 Posts: 299 Location: Hangzhou, China
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
eccerr0r Watchman
Joined: 01 Jul 2004 Posts: 9775 Location: almost Mile High in the USA
|
Posted: Mon Sep 23, 2024 1:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Well, your SSD RAID clearly can exceed the 200MB/sec limit in the kernel, do you actually bump up the number? Have you had a failure yet?
I'm just saying for my mechanical drives, even back in 2001, 200MB/sec may well be 400MB/sec or even infinite. IIRC in 2001, hard disks were in the 10GB? range, and disk head rates were a few MB/sec. I don't think people had 100 disk RAIDs back then... that would tax that 200MB/sec number? _________________ Intel Core i7 2700K/Radeon R7 250/24GB DDR3/256GB SSD
What am I supposed watching? |
|
Back to top |
|
|
druggo Apprentice
Joined: 24 Sep 2003 Posts: 299 Location: Hangzhou, China
|
Posted: Mon Sep 23, 2024 2:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
yes, to release the potential ( echo 20000000 > sync_speed_max ), a new raid wait for failure
back in 2001, I had a 40GB IBM glass-based disk support ATA100 , so max speed is 100MB/s . _________________ HighWayToHell(blog)
https://blog.druggo.org/ |
|
Back to top |
|
|
eccerr0r Watchman
Joined: 01 Jul 2004 Posts: 9775 Location: almost Mile High in the USA
|
Posted: Mon Sep 23, 2024 2:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
There was no way those 40GB disks reached 100MB/sec and I think it's more like ATA33. Head rates are at most 20MB/sec or so.
I think it wasn't until 60GB disks where some had ATA66/ATA100. The fastest head rate I've seen on 120GB ATA100s were like 60MB/sec or so.
The fastest ATA100/133 disk I've seen was around 70MB/sec and this was more like 2008 ish... In any case this is still well lower than 200MB/sec. _________________ Intel Core i7 2700K/Radeon R7 250/24GB DDR3/256GB SSD
What am I supposed watching? |
|
Back to top |
|
|
druggo Apprentice
Joined: 24 Sep 2003 Posts: 299 Location: Hangzhou, China
|
Posted: Mon Sep 23, 2024 3:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
You are right, a 40GB disk cannot achieve 100MB/s, as the ATA100 was the interface specification.
According to the article https://www.anandtech.com/show/591 , written in 2000:
40GB IBM deskstar can reach 32MB/s, then a six disk raid may syncing up to 192MB/s _________________ HighWayToHell(blog)
https://blog.druggo.org/ |
|
Back to top |
|
|
eccerr0r Watchman
Joined: 01 Jul 2004 Posts: 9775 Location: almost Mile High in the USA
|
Posted: Mon Sep 23, 2024 4:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
However this sync speed is not 192MB/sec it's still 32MB/sec. This 200MB/sec number appears to be bottlenecking the writes, not reads.
When assembling arrays for the first time which actually does a "recovery," despite the 200MB/sec setting, my test 5-disk RAID5 was clearly reading four disks at 100MB/sec -- 400MB/sec read -- and writing the fifth at 100MB/sec. So it's not attainable for me now (unless I really wanted to do something silly with all of the small SSDs I have...) and definitely not attainable then.
BTW I suspect back then they were for certain not targeting ATA, UDMA or not -- it was U160 or maybe U320 SCSI most likely. But even those disks didn't have head rates this high, and U160 bus itself would be bottlenecked at 160MB/sec anyway (and U320 a bit better but you'd still need to read disks, which eat a huge amount of bandwidth). So what the heck with this 200MB/sec number?! _________________ Intel Core i7 2700K/Radeon R7 250/24GB DDR3/256GB SSD
What am I supposed watching? |
|
Back to top |
|
|
druggo Apprentice
Joined: 24 Sep 2003 Posts: 299 Location: Hangzhou, China
|
Posted: Tue Sep 24, 2024 3:09 am Post subject: |
|
|
Oh, I foget the recovery!
Than only scrubbing can reach that speed at the time sata1.0(1.5G) and fiber channel(2G) could (by asking gpt) _________________ HighWayToHell(blog)
https://blog.druggo.org/ |
|
Back to top |
|
|
|