xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [UNSURE] Re: mkfs options for a 16x hw raid5 and xfs (mostly large f

To: "Bryan J. Smith" <b.j.smith@xxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [UNSURE] Re: mkfs options for a 16x hw raid5 and xfs (mostly large files)
From: Justin Piszcz <jpiszcz@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2007 13:38:32 -0400 (EDT)
Cc: Ralf Gross <Ralf-Lists@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0709261336080.24646@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <957634.8098.qm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <Pine.LNX.4.64.0709261336080.24646@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: xfs-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx


On Wed, 26 Sep 2007, Justin Piszcz wrote:



On Wed, 26 Sep 2007, Bryan J. Smith wrote:

Justin Piszcz <jpiszcz@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
So what tunables do the 9550/9650SE users utilize to achieve > 500
MiB/s write on HW RAID5/6?

Don't know.  But I've never claimed it was capable of it either.

At the same time, I've seen software RAID do over 500MBps, only to
drop to under 50MBps aggregate client DTR under load.

Do you have any type of benchmarks to similate the load you are mentioning? What did HW RAID drop to when the same test was run with SW RAID / 50 MBps under load? Did it achieve better performance due to an on-board / raid-card controller cache, or?

Justin.



simulate* rather.


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>