xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: A little RAID experiment

To: Stefan Ring <stefanrin@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: A little RAID experiment
From: Stan Hoeppner <stan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2012 09:03:47 -0500
Cc: Roger Willcocks <roger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Linux fs XFS <xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx>
In-reply-to: <CAAxjCEyni5=OG=AU+UMO-jfnP3q6MUanki2Nk7p=_mxdqveqwA@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <CAAxjCEzh3+doupD=LmgqSbCeYWzn9Ru-vE4T8tOJmoud+28FDQ@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <1335363423.4586.431.camel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <CAAxjCEyni5=OG=AU+UMO-jfnP3q6MUanki2Nk7p=_mxdqveqwA@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Reply-to: stan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:11.0) Gecko/20120327 Thunderbird/11.0.1
On 4/25/2012 11:23 AM, Stefan Ring wrote:
>> Result (seems reasonably consistent):
>>
>> Operations performed:  0 Read, 127458 Write, 0 Other = 127458 Total
>> Read 0b  Written 995.77Mb  Total transferred 995.77Mb  (66.337Mb/sec)
>>  8491.11 Requests/sec executed]
> 
> Holy moly, this is an entirely different game you're playing here! I
> suppose that you're using a battery backed write cache?

He's running a 20 data spindle RAID60, across two decent hardware RAID
cards each with 512MB write cache, so of course it's going to be much
faster than your 4 data spindle RAID6, even with slightly slower spindles.

Note that 8x 15K drives in RAID10 on your P410i should slightly surpass
Roger's RAID60 performance, ~70MB/s vs 66MB/s.  3x fewer drives for
roughly equal performance, but obviously less capacity.

-- 
Stan

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