I'm using this USB3 (5Gbps, theoretically) RAID enclosure set to RAID10 as my storage for my VMs and I'm not sure but think my performance is worse than it was when I was using SATA drives connected in RAID0 to an LSI battery-backed, 512MB RAID card. How much worse should I expect? Is this going to be unusable? Should I configure it instead to use 3Gbps SATA II (eSATA) because of some performance burstiness with USB3 I'm not aware of?
USB3 RAID enclosure as storage
- Thread starter starkruzr
- Start date
I did some test some months ago with bonnie++ and a USB3 no name enclosure, and I found out the limiting factor to be the hard drive, ie I achieved 100MB/s of sequential write using bonnie++ wether it was over USB3 or SATA.
See this bonnie++ command output,
If you are conserned about storage performance could you please install bonnie++, run the command "bonnie++ " and post the results here for discussion.
This would give us hard numbers on which to base decisions.
See this bonnie++ command output,
If you are conserned about storage performance could you please install bonnie++, run the command "bonnie++ " and post the results here for discussion.
This would give us hard numbers on which to base decisions.
Hm.
What do you think?
Code:
root@cirrus:/media/usb0/images/100# bonnie++ -u root -d /media/usb0Using uid:0, gid:0.
Writing a byte at a time...done
Writing intelligently...done
Rewriting...done
Reading a byte at a time...done
Reading intelligently...done
start 'em...done...done...done...done...done...
Create files in sequential order...done.
Stat files in sequential order...done.
Delete files in sequential order...done.
Create files in random order...done.
Stat files in random order...done.
Delete files in random order...done.
Version 1.97 ------Sequential Output------ --Sequential Input- --Random-
Concurrency 1 -Per Chr- --Block-- -Rewrite- -Per Chr- --Block-- --Seeks--
Machine Size K/sec %CP K/sec %CP K/sec %CP K/sec %CP K/sec %CP /sec %CP
cirrus 63G 1142 99 198684 9 85828 6 +++++ +++ 196730 11 178.4 2
Latency 9457us 185ms 5482ms 13619us 46538us 205ms
Version 1.97 ------Sequential Create------ --------Random Create--------
cirrus -Create-- --Read--- -Delete-- -Create-- --Read--- -Delete--
files /sec %CP /sec %CP /sec %CP /sec %CP /sec %CP /sec %CP
16 +++++ +++ +++++ +++ +++++ +++ +++++ +++ +++++ +++ +++++ +++
Latency 36us 200us 223us 41us 8us 34us
1.97,1.97,cirrus,1,1436507958,63G,,1142,99,198684,9,85828,6,+++++,+++,196730,11,178.4,2,16,,,,,+++++,+++,+++++,+++,+++++,+++,+++++,+++,+++++,+++,+++++,+++,9457us,185ms,5482ms,13619us,46538us,205ms,36us,200us,223us,41us,8us,34usWhat do you think?
I think that:
1) you shouldn't use RAID0: too dangerous
2) you aren't giving a comparison, just USB-case figures
3) raw IO speed is not all: compare CPU load and latency too!
For 3, don't you think that it would be useless to have a storage that nearly halts your VMs when tranferring data?