Unsolved
This post is more than 5 years old
16 Posts
0
1392
Partition Alignment (once again)
Hi !
When setting up Partitions on a Lun under Linux (SLES9) and using the "Best Practices",
I have the following effects:
dd if=/dev/emcpowera of=/dev/null bs=64k gives about 300mb/s
dd if=/dev/encpowera1.... gives only 40mb/s, when not aligning.
The Partition uses the whole disk.
When now using the recommended way with fdisk nothing changes at all.
BUT when I leave some space by leaving some space at the end of the Lun
(creating partion not to the end of disk) and the use the recommended alignment the test
gives me again the whole 300mb/s.
The same is true for mke2fs. The filesystem creation is much faster when leaving space AND aligning.
I haven't found anything about leaving space is necessary so I think this might be unique to the clariion.
Any Ideas why this is happending ?
When setting up Partitions on a Lun under Linux (SLES9) and using the "Best Practices",
I have the following effects:
dd if=/dev/emcpowera of=/dev/null bs=64k gives about 300mb/s
dd if=/dev/encpowera1.... gives only 40mb/s, when not aligning.
The Partition uses the whole disk.
When now using the recommended way with fdisk nothing changes at all.
BUT when I leave some space by leaving some space at the end of the Lun
(creating partion not to the end of disk) and the use the recommended alignment the test
gives me again the whole 300mb/s.
The same is true for mke2fs. The filesystem creation is much faster when leaving space AND aligning.
I haven't found anything about leaving space is necessary so I think this might be unique to the clariion.
Any Ideas why this is happending ?
xe2sdc
2 Intern
2 Intern
•
2.8K Posts
0
February 20th, 2008 03:00
Having that said, I need more informations about your environment.
Could you please specify the size of the lun. A good starting point may be the partition table as per the fdisk command for your CX lun. Please post both "aligned-only" and "aligned-and-padded" partition table.
I think you are using ext3 when formatting your lun. If possible please post also the mkfs command line you used.
Omega4
16 Posts
0
February 20th, 2008 03:00
Omega4
16 Posts
0
February 20th, 2008 04:00
Read Performance with Raid5 (4+1) can be about 4 times higher.
And we do not write in this rather senseless test. writing to /dev/null just discards the data after reading.
RRR
2 Intern
2 Intern
•
5.7K Posts
0
February 20th, 2008 04:00
Omega4
16 Posts
0
February 20th, 2008 04:00
But 300 is not to much when just reading from disk without involving a filesystem.
I won't get this number with applications but I stumbled on this odd behavior I tried to understand.
The disks used a 10k FC 300GB.
RRR
2 Intern
2 Intern
•
5.7K Posts
0
February 20th, 2008 04:00
Omega4
16 Posts
0
February 20th, 2008 04:00
Omega4
16 Posts
0
February 20th, 2008 04:00
The first gives Throughput on the whole lun, without accessing the Partition.
This works because the lun can't be misaligned.
When then creating a misaligned Partition and dd this, the performance is poor.
Creating a aligned partition gives the right throughput, but this does not work according to "best practices", where the default settings are used when creating the partition with fdisk.
Aligning only works when
- leaving space at the end of the lun
- using sector settings.
The 180gb Lun is on a raid5 with 5 Disks (128 element size).
Creating:
Disk /dev/emcpowere: 171.7 GB, 171798691840 bytes
255 heads, 63 sectors/track, 20886 cylinders
Units = cylinders of 16065 * 512 = 8225280 bytes
Device Boot Start End Blocks Id System
Command (m for help): n
Command action
e extended
p primary partition (1-4)
p
Partition number (1-4): 1
First cylinder (1-20886, default 1):
Using default value 1
Last cylinder or +size or +sizeM or +sizeK (1-20886, default 20886):
Using default value 20886
Command (m for help): x
Expert command (m for help): b
Partition number (1-4): 1
New beginning of data (63-335533589, default 63): 128
Expert command (m for help): p
Disk /dev/emcpowere: 255 heads, 63 sectors, 20886 cylinders
Nr AF Hd Sec Cyl Hd Sec Cyl Start Size ID
1 00 1 1 0 254 63 1023 128 335533462 83
2 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00
3 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00
4 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00
This one is slow.
Now the working one:
Command (m for help): n
Command action
e extended
p primary partition (1-4)
p
Partition number (1-4): 1
First cylinder (1-20886, default 1): 1
Last cylinder or +size or +sizeM or +sizeK (1-20886, default 20886): 20800
Command (m for help): x
Expert command (m for help): b
Partition number (1-4): 1
New beginning of data (63-334151999, default 63): 128
Expert command (m for help): p
Disk /dev/emcpowere: 255 heads, 63 sectors, 20886 cylinders
Nr AF Hd Sec Cyl Hd Sec Cyl Start Size ID
1 00 1 1 0 254 63 1023 128 334151872 83
2 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00
3 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00
4 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00
Expert command (m for help): w
The partions mostly look the same but dd is very different.
The easiest way to create a partition is:
Command (m for help): u
Changing display/entry units to sectors
Command (m for help): n
Command action
e extended
p primary partition (1-4)
p
Partition number (1-4): 1
First sector (63-335544319, default 63): 128
Last sector or +size or +sizeM or +sizeK (128-335544319, default 335544319):
Using default value 335544319
The dd is independent of filesystem.
RRR
2 Intern
2 Intern
•
5.7K Posts
0
February 20th, 2008 04:00
xe2sdc
2 Intern
2 Intern
•
2.8K Posts
0
February 20th, 2008 05:00
RRR
2 Intern
2 Intern
•
5.7K Posts
0
February 20th, 2008 06:00
aaaah, that makes sence.
RRR
2 Intern
2 Intern
•
5.7K Posts
0
February 20th, 2008 06:00
xe2sdc
2 Intern
2 Intern
•
2.8K Posts
0
February 20th, 2008 06:00
If you agree, I'll ask our admins to move this thread .. and you'll hopefully have a lot more interest on this topic
RRR
2 Intern
2 Intern
•
5.7K Posts
0
February 20th, 2008 07:00
Omega, what do you think ?
Omega4
16 Posts
0
February 20th, 2008 22:00