Slashdot Mirror
RAID Problems With Intel Core 2?
Nom du Keyboard writes "The Inquirer is reporting that the new Intel Core 2 processors Woodcrest and Conroe are suffering badly when running RAID 5 disk arrays, even when using non-Intel controllers. Can Intel afford to make a misstep now with even in the small subset of users running RAID 5 systems?" From the article: "The performance in benchmarks is there, but the performance in real world isn't. While synthetic benchmarks will do the thing and show RAID5-worthy results, CPU utilization will go through the roof no matter what CPU is used, and the hiccups will occur every now and then. It remains to be seen whether this can be fixed via BIOS or micro-code update."
If you're running raid5 it's probably in an enterprise setup. If so, why aren't you running a dedicated controller? The CPU should have little to no impact on the raid subsystem...
Seems odd to me that the inquirer is the only one reporting this. How about a real hardware review site?
Reading the article it's all about software raid and the performance they get.
... )
The interesting question is what other peices of software that we run will get unexpectedly bad performance.
( I have > 2TB of hardware RAID 5 at home so I was wondering
Where's the bug? My RAID 0+0.999999998 works just fine Intel Core 1.99904274017.
What if you have a lot of photos, music or movies - these aren't unusual things these days. I don't want to go rummaging through DVDs to find the picture I want, I want to fire up f-spot and see it there straight away.
RAID5 provides sensible protection against data loss when using consumer hard disks - software RAID5 is readily available on linux and hard disks in the 2-300GB range are easily affordable. You can often pick them up for $50 after rebates. So I can get a TB of storage for a few hundred dollars, but to use hardware RAID5 would probably double the cost. Fine if you're an enterprise, but not fine if you're using it at home.
"I agree with this. For most people, backing up your data every week is a LOT better option for data security. Users who should be using RAID 5 should also have dedicated controllers."
You're generalizing a little too much. For example: I have >1TB storage on my mythtv box (I just like to have a good selection of stuff to watch when I finally get to watch tv, and I'm never at home when the shows I like are being broadcasted), and I'm using software RAID5 on that. That is, software raid5, on shared controllers: All together seven disks off the mainboard, from a mixture of pata and sata connectors. I wouldn't do this on something like a server, but it's plenty fast enough for mythtv. It also gives a lot of protection for the array of disks, and it's a much, much better option than the weekly backup you suggest (first of all, a backup would take ages, cost waay more in disks (which wouldn't even fit in the HTPC), and last but not least: without raid5, if one disk dies, I could lose up to 7 days of recordings...).
--- Hindsight is 20/20, but walking backwards is not the answer.
I agree, it seems on slashdot (and actually, some of my friends) that you're an idiot if you're not running RAID but your equally dumb if you're running RAID5 because it's not a backup solution. It's as if there can't be any gray area in the matter. People make it seem like RAID5 has no purpose or benefit and everyone should just be using striping+backup. To me, the point of RAID5 or other redundancy RAID setups is it's your first line of recovery for a disk failure. If a disk fails, you replace it and you've suffered little downtime. If something major happens then yes, you restore from backup.
My other issue is with people forgetting the idea behind being sensible about what needs to be protected and how much it should cost. There is no reason why my personal collection of photos, music and video should cost me so much. Software RAID is way more than adequate for providing a cheap way to store my files. If data protection AND peak performance are what you need, then yes you need to go full hardware. WHERE'S THE MIDDLE GROUND PEOPLE?
No, no, no, no. The processing overhead of parity calculations is miniscule on any remotely modern CPU (even a paltry 300Mhz Pentium 2 has a parity throughput of ~700M/sec).
The performance killer on parity-based RAID configuration is the additional disk reads required to calculate the parity, *not* the parity calculations themselves. Which is why modern software RAID is typically faster than hardware RAID until you get into larges numbers of disks and/or machines with limited bus bandwidth.
This "RAID 5 is slow because of parity calculations" meme must die (although, admittedly, it's a good indicator of whether or not someone really understands what's going on).