I'm doing another performance series on the MSA we'll be putting into Bond Hall. This will be our BCC SAN as well as the home for the 'backup to disk' storage.
One of the tests I ran was to do a full IOZONE series on a 32GB file. This is to better get a feel for how such large files perform on the MSA, since I suspect that any backup-to-disk system will be generating files that large. But I got some s-t-r-a-n-g-e numbers. It turns out that the random-write test is much faster than the random-read test. Weird.
So, um. Yeah. And you want to know the scary part? This holds true for both a Raid0 and Raid5 array. Both have a 64K stripe size, which is not default. Raid5's default stripe is 16K, and Raid0 is 128K. I'll test the default stripes next to see if they affect the results any. But this is STILL weird.
Perhaps writes are cached and reordered, and reads just come off of disk? Hard to say. But read speed does improve as the record size increases. The 16MB record size turns in a read speed of only .5 that of the write speed. Yet the read performance at 64K is .12 that of write. Ouch! I'm running the same test on the EVA to see if there is a difference, but I don't know what the EVA stripe-size is.
Tags: benchmarking, MSA
One of the tests I ran was to do a full IOZONE series on a 32GB file. This is to better get a feel for how such large files perform on the MSA, since I suspect that any backup-to-disk system will be generating files that large. But I got some s-t-r-a-n-g-e numbers. It turns out that the random-write test is much faster than the random-read test. Weird.
| RandomR | |||
| Rec KB | 2048 | 4096 | 8192 |
| Thru | 10881 | 17115 | 23311 |
| RandomW | |||
| Rec KB | 2048 | 4096 | 8192 |
| Thru | 64491 | 63949 | 62681 |
So, um. Yeah. And you want to know the scary part? This holds true for both a Raid0 and Raid5 array. Both have a 64K stripe size, which is not default. Raid5's default stripe is 16K, and Raid0 is 128K. I'll test the default stripes next to see if they affect the results any. But this is STILL weird.
Perhaps writes are cached and reordered, and reads just come off of disk? Hard to say. But read speed does improve as the record size increases. The 16MB record size turns in a read speed of only .5 that of the write speed. Yet the read performance at 64K is .12 that of write. Ouch! I'm running the same test on the EVA to see if there is a difference, but I don't know what the EVA stripe-size is.
Tags: benchmarking, MSA