On 06/08/10 12:31, Mark Kirkwood wrote:
> On 06/08/10 11:58, Alan Hodgson wrote:
>> On Thursday, August 05, 2010, Mark
>> Kirkwood<mark.kirkwood@catalyst.net.nz>
>> wrote:
>>> Normally I'd agree with the others and recommend RAID10 - but you say
>>> you have an OLAP workload - if it is *heavily* read biased you may get
>>> better performance with RAID5 (more effective disks to read from).
>>> Having said that, your sequential read performance right now is pretty
>>> low (151 MB/s - should be double this), which may point to an issue
>>> with this controller. Unfortunately this *may* be important for an OLAP
>>> workload (seq scans of big tables).
>> Probably a low (default) readahead limitation. ext3 doesn't help but
>> it can
>> usually get up over 400MB/sec. Doubt it's the controller.
>>
>
> Yeah - good suggestion, so cranking up readahead (man blockdev) and
> retesting is recommended.
>
>
... sorry, it just occurred to wonder about the stripe or chunk size
used in the array, as making this too small can also severely hamper
sequential performance.
Cheers
Mark
