![]() ![]() When a disk fails, a striped parity array can reconstruct the data from the missing disk(s) so long as there is equivalent parity to reconstruct it with. On the next stripe, disk 0 and disk 7 would contain the two parity blocks, and on the third stripe, disks 0 and 1. Taking an eight disk RAID6 array as an example, disks 0-5 might contain data and disks 6-7 contain parity1 and parity2 on the first stripe. There is no "parity disk" in RAID5 or RAID6, because the parity block locations are rotated from stripe to stripe. Similarly, a three disk RAID5 has a storage efficiency of 2/3-66.7%. So, an eight disk RAID6 array has storage efficiency of 6/8-which reduces to 75%. These are striped topologies, with one block (RAID5) and two blocks (RAID6) of parity per stripe.Ī striped array has a storage efficiency of (n-p)/n, where n is the number of disks in the array, and p is the number of parity blocks. RAID5 and RAID6 are the most commonly encountered topologies among small business and amateur storage admins' systems. Using end_fsync=1 forces fio to include the time spent actually committing the writes to disk in its throughput results. In 10 seconds, most systems will accept enough 4KiB asynchronous write requests to keep the disks chattering for minutes afterwards. We test both fully synchronous and fully asynchronous workloads, using the fio arguments fsync=1 for 100 percent synchronous, and end_fsync=1 for 100 percent asynchronous.Īny fio write test must include end_fsync=1 at a minimum, or the end result will be garbage. The worst-case scenario, from an IOPS perspective, is a 100 percent synchronous workload-meaning sync() is called after each individual block write. These calls force the operating system to flush any data in its write buffer-also known as "dirty" data-to disk immediately, no matter how inconvenient or inefficient that might be. To do so, the application calls sync() or fsync()after requesting the write. Sometimes, however, an application needs to know for certain that its writes are committed to storage right now, to prevent data loss or corruption in the event of a crash. ![]() (Anyone who's done much bittorrenting has likely found this out the hard way.) A file stored in fragments now must also be fetched in fragments later. ![]() Equally importantly, it allows later reads of the data to consume fewer IOPS-remember, the system can try to reorder writes, but for the most part it must read the data in whatever way it was written. This standard behavior, called asynchronous writing, allows the operating system to order writes as nearly contiguous as possible.Īggregating writes this way minimizes the number of IOPS required to write data to disk. In order to accelerate writes, the operating system prefers to wait to commit them, rather than making each write the moment it's asked for. In the section on IOPS vs throughput above, we discussed the fact that most storage calls are limited not by how much data must be moved to or from disk, but by how many operations are necessary to fetch or store it. Operating systems like to "cheat" with writes just as much when given the chance for the same reason. We talked about how reads are difficult to test, because the operating system does its best to cache them, and cache is orders of magnitude faster than storage. Much of the way operating systems interact with storage devices revolves around finding ways to ask them to do as little as possible, since they are so frequently a system's biggest bottleneck.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |