| To: | Thomas Kaehn <tk@xxxxxxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: Strange delete performance using XFS |
| From: | Chris Wedgwood <cw@xxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Thu, 5 Apr 2007 08:29:17 -0700 |
| Cc: | xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| In-reply-to: | <20070405072803.GB2759@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| References: | <20070404130535.GE18320@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20070404154523.GA20096@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20070405072803.GB2759@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Sender: | xfs-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx |
On Thu, Apr 05, 2007 at 09:28:03AM +0200, Thomas Kaehn wrote: > The Dell system has got a battery-backed write-cache. The 3ware > system has no battery unit. However it's supposed to provide write > cache, too. That sounds like the main reason for the difference. The Dell's raid system can safely buffer outstanding writes and flsuh them, the 3ware can't so it stalls waiting fot the disks to catch up. You could run blktrace and watch what's going on in both cases to verify this. The numbers do seem a little low for a raid array all the same, I'd be tempted to just use the 3ware as a JBOD and use sw, but I'm arguably biased, I've had so many reliability and performance problems with hw raid over the years I will almost always use sw raid given the choice. |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: Interface for the new fallocate() system call, Amit K. Arora |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: XFS Resiliency to the disk errors., Eric Sandeen |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: Strange delete performance using XFS, Justin Piszcz |
| Next by Thread: | Re: Strange delete performance using XFS, Peter Grandi |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |