Internal Storage is always better.
-
@travisdh1 Maybe I'm reading it wrong from the size of the screengrab,
But I read md0 as 76109K/sec and md1 as 12136K/sec and md2 as 54044K/sec
Clearly md0 is faster.
-
@travisdh1 said in Internal Storage is always better.:
@DustinB3403 said in Internal Storage is always better.:
I'm gonna guess the Raid 10
Double check those...
md2, RAID1, speed=54044
md1, RAID1, speed=1213
md0, RAID10, speed=761The speed difference between md2 and md1 is purely internal vs DAS, and md0 is just slow drives (5400 rpm instead of 7200 rpm.)
DAS should not have a huge impact IMHO. It's still direct attached, there are just expanders (read: ~ "USB Hubs") in between.
-
@thwr said in Internal Storage is always better.:
@travisdh1 said in Internal Storage is always better.:
@DustinB3403 said in Internal Storage is always better.:
I'm gonna guess the Raid 10
Double check those...
md2, RAID1, speed=54044
md1, RAID1, speed=1213
md0, RAID10, speed=761The speed difference between md2 and md1 is purely internal vs DAS, and md0 is just slow drives (5400 rpm instead of 7200 rpm.)
DAS should not have a huge impact IMHO. It's still direct attached, there are just expanders (read: ~ "USB Hubs") in between.
I'm not reading my own screen grab right, missing the line split
-
@travisdh1 said in Internal Storage is always better.:
I'm not reading my own screen grab right, missing the line split
exactly. It is:
md2, RAID1, speed=54044
md1, RAID1, speed=12136
md0, RAID10, speed=76109 -
@thwr said in Internal Storage is always better.:
@travisdh1 said in Internal Storage is always better.:
I'm not reading my own screen grab right, missing the line split
exactly. It is:
md2, RAID1, speed=54044
md1, RAID1, speed=12136
md0, RAID10, speed=76109So why is your md1 this slow?
-
Now that I'm reading things right, I'm guessing md1 and md0 are both fully utilizing the ESATA connection with 4 drives connected to each channel.
-
@travisdh1 said in Internal Storage is always better.:
Now that I'm reading things right, I'm guessing md1 and md0 are both fully utilizing the ESATA connection with 4 drives connected to each channel.
but md0 is nearly 7 times faster. Just because RAID10 vs RAID1? I would understand if the RAID10 is twice as fast, but 7 times is a bit much.
-
@thwr said in Internal Storage is always better.:
@travisdh1 said in Internal Storage is always better.:
Now that I'm reading things right, I'm guessing md1 and md0 are both fully utilizing the ESATA connection with 4 drives connected to each channel.
but md0 is nearly 7 times faster. Just because RAID10 vs RAID1? I would understand if the RAID10 is twice as fast, but 7 times is a bit much.
Well, that is 6 drives compared to only 2... still, 7 times as fast is odd.
-
@travisdh1 said in Internal Storage is always better.:
@thwr said in Internal Storage is always better.:
@travisdh1 said in Internal Storage is always better.:
Now that I'm reading things right, I'm guessing md1 and md0 are both fully utilizing the ESATA connection with 4 drives connected to each channel.
but md0 is nearly 7 times faster. Just because RAID10 vs RAID1? I would understand if the RAID10 is twice as fast, but 7 times is a bit much.
Well, that is 6 drives compared to only 2... still, 7 times as fast is odd.
You said you had 5400RPM drives? That would account for the slowness.
-
@travisdh1 said in Internal Storage is always better.:
@thwr said in Internal Storage is always better.:
@travisdh1 said in Internal Storage is always better.:
Now that I'm reading things right, I'm guessing md1 and md0 are both fully utilizing the ESATA connection with 4 drives connected to each channel.
but md0 is nearly 7 times faster. Just because RAID10 vs RAID1? I would understand if the RAID10 is twice as fast, but 7 times is a bit much.
Well, that is 6 drives compared to only 2... still, 7 times as fast is odd.
Oh, i thought its 4 vs 4. Wait a sec
-
@thwr said in Internal Storage is always better.:
@travisdh1 said in Internal Storage is always better.:
@thwr said in Internal Storage is always better.:
@travisdh1 said in Internal Storage is always better.:
Now that I'm reading things right, I'm guessing md1 and md0 are both fully utilizing the ESATA connection with 4 drives connected to each channel.
but md0 is nearly 7 times faster. Just because RAID10 vs RAID1? I would understand if the RAID10 is twice as fast, but 7 times is a bit much.
Well, that is 6 drives compared to only 2... still, 7 times as fast is odd.
Oh, i thought its 4 vs 4. Wait a sec
The 6 disk RAID 10 should be 3 times faster, but I'm not sure about this. Don't know how up to date this http://wintelguy.com/raidperf2.pl is
-
@thwr said in Internal Storage is always better.:
@travisdh1 said in Internal Storage is always better.:
@thwr said in Internal Storage is always better.:
@travisdh1 said in Internal Storage is always better.:
Now that I'm reading things right, I'm guessing md1 and md0 are both fully utilizing the ESATA connection with 4 drives connected to each channel.
but md0 is nearly 7 times faster. Just because RAID10 vs RAID1? I would understand if the RAID10 is twice as fast, but 7 times is a bit much.
Well, that is 6 drives compared to only 2... still, 7 times as fast is odd.
Oh, i thought its 4 vs 4. Wait a sec
The expanders are 4 drives each, and the RAID 10 is 6 drives of one of the two channels and the RAID1 is two drives on one.
-
@travisdh1 said in Internal Storage is always better.:
@thwr said in Internal Storage is always better.:
@travisdh1 said in Internal Storage is always better.:
@thwr said in Internal Storage is always better.:
@travisdh1 said in Internal Storage is always better.:
Now that I'm reading things right, I'm guessing md1 and md0 are both fully utilizing the ESATA connection with 4 drives connected to each channel.
but md0 is nearly 7 times faster. Just because RAID10 vs RAID1? I would understand if the RAID10 is twice as fast, but 7 times is a bit much.
Well, that is 6 drives compared to only 2... still, 7 times as fast is odd.
Oh, i thought its 4 vs 4. Wait a sec
The expanders are 4 drives each, and the RAID 10 is 6 drives of one of the two channels and the RAID1 is two drives on one.
Ah ok
-
So this looks like an MD array, is this running on XenServer?
-
Also you've got approx 8TB of space there, correct?
-
@DustinB3403 said in Internal Storage is always better.:
Also you've got approx 8TB of space there, correct?
Yes.
-
@DustinB3403 said in Internal Storage is always better.:
So this looks like an MD array, is this running on XenServer?
It is. Hopefully I won't have any oddness formatting these as ext3 when that completes.
-
@travisdh1 said in Internal Storage is always better.:
@DustinB3403 said in Internal Storage is always better.:
So this looks like an MD array, is this running on XenServer?
It is. Hopefully I won't have any oddness formatting these as ext3 when that completes.
Any reason for not using ext4?
-
@travisdh1 said in Internal Storage is always better.:
@DustinB3403 said in Internal Storage is always better.:
So this looks like an MD array, is this running on XenServer?
It is. Hopefully I won't have any oddness formatting these as ext3 when that completes.
I was going to ask the same question that @thwr asked, along with what is the hardware set?
-
@DustinB3403 said in Internal Storage is always better.:
@travisdh1 said in Internal Storage is always better.:
@DustinB3403 said in Internal Storage is always better.:
So this looks like an MD array, is this running on XenServer?
It is. Hopefully I won't have any oddness formatting these as ext3 when that completes.
I was going to ask the same question that @thwr asked, along with what is the hardware set?
WD RED and Seagate NAS drives for the RAID 10, whatever 1TB drives happened to be lying around for the two RAID1 sets. (I prefer HGST drives when buying drives today.)
ext3, because XenServer
Apparently, XenServer is one of those "we don't get storage" vendors.
