On Fri, Jul 13, 2007 at 03:36:46PM -0400, Justin Piszcz wrote:
> On Fri, 13 Jul 2007, Jon Collette wrote:
> >Wouldn't Raid 6 be slower than Raid 5 because of the extra fault tolerance?
> > http://www.enterprisenetworksandservers.com/monthly/art.php?1754 - 20%
> >drop according to this article
> >His 500GB WD drives are 7200RPM compared to the Raptors 10K. So his
> >numbers will be slower.
> >Justin what file system do you have running on the Raptors? I think thats
> >an interesting point made by Joshua.
> I use XFS:
When it comes to bandwidth, there is good reason for that.
> >>>Trying to stick with a supported config as much as possible, I need to
> >>>run ext3. As per usual, though, initial ext3 numbers are less than
> >>>impressive. Using bonnie++ to get a baseline, I get (after doing
> >>>'blockdev --setra 65536' on the device):
> >>>Write: 136MB/s
> >>>Read: 384MB/s
> >>>Proving it's not the hardware, with XFS the numbers look like:
> >>>Write: 333MB/s
> >>>Read: 465MB/s
Those are pretty typical numbers. In my experience, ext3 is limited to about
250MB/s buffered write speed. It's not disk limited, it's design limited. e.g.
on a disk subsystem where XFS was getting 4-5GB/s buffered write, ext3 was doing
If you've got any sort of serious disk array, ext3 is not the filesystem
> >>>How many folks are using these? Any tuning tips?
Make sure you tell XFS the correct sunit/swidth. For hardware
raid5/6, sunit = per-disk chunksize, swidth = number of *data* disks in
SGI Australian Software Group