| 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> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: A little RAID experiment, Stan Hoeppner |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: A little RAID experiment, Stan Hoeppner |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: A little RAID experiment, Stefan Ring |
| Next by Thread: | Re: A little RAID experiment, Stefan Ring |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |