|
Page 3 of 3
Configuring software RAID is rather easy. There are some
wonderful
HOWTO
articles on the web about configuring and
maintaining a software RAID set. Daniel Robbins has written
two very good articles for IBM's developer website
(see Resources Sidebar). If you use software RAID remember that
you will see an increase in the CPU usage due to the RAID.
However, this impact is traded against improved data throughput
from RAID-0. Also, the speed of modern processors and the use
of dual processor motherboards usually minimizes the impact for
normal operations.
The other option is to use a true hardware RAID card offloading the
CPU and minimizing the impact on the node. However, in some cases,
the speed of the RAID card is actually slower than software RAID
because the CPU in the node is much faster than the processor on the
RAID card.
Underlying File system
PVFS is a virtual file system built on top of an existing file system.
Thus, the speed of PVFS is affected by the speed of the underlying
file system because PVFS relies on the underlying file systems to
write the data to the actual disk.
Nathan Poznick, a frequent contributor to PVFS, performed some tests
on PVFS2 and the effect of the underlying file system. He tested
ext2, ext3 (data=ordered), ext3 (data=writeback), ext3 (data=journal),
fs, xfs, reiserfs, and reiser4. The tests were performed with a
single server and a single client (see the Resources Sidebar for a
link to an explanation of the ext3 journaling modes). The server
was running SUSE Enterprise Server 9 with a 2.6.8.1-mm1 kernel and
the client was running Red Hat 7.3 with a 2.4.18 kernel. He performed
two tests, a file creation test, and data test. The file creation
test just used the Linux command C to create 10,000 empty
files in PVFS2. The second test used the Linux command dd with a
block size of 16 MB to create a 4 GB file. A link to a plot of the
results can be found in the Resources Sidebar.
For the touch test, ext2 was the fastest, followed closely
by xfs. Reiser4 was the slowest in the test by a factor of 10. For
ext3, the ordered and writeback journaling modes were about the
same speed and far faster than the journal mode. For the dd test,
jfs was the fastest, followed somewhat closely by ext2 and xfs. Again,
reiser4 was the slowest by a factor of 20. For ext3, the writeback
journaling mode was a bit faster than the ordered mode, but both
were about one-third faster than the journal mode. Nathan admits
that the tests are somewhat unscientific in that the file systems
could have been tuned to provide better performance. Also, note
that reiser4 was probably not a final version.
Even Nathan's simple tests show the effect of the underlying
file system on the performance of PVFS.
This article was originally published in ClusterWorld Magazine. It has been updated and formated for the web. If you want to read more about HPC clusters and Linux you may wish to visit Linux Magazine.
Dr. Jeff Layton hopes to someday have a 20 TB file system in his home
computer. He lives in the Atlanta area
and can sometimes be found lounging at the nearby Fry's, dreaming of
hardware and drinking coffee (but never during working hours).
Comment on this article
You must login to leave comments...
Other Visitors Comments
There are no comments currently....
|