From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda3.sgi.com [192.48.176.15]) by oss.sgi.com (8.14.3/8.14.3/SuSE Linux 0.8) with ESMTP id q3RE3mjX172879 for ; Fri, 27 Apr 2012 09:03:48 -0500 Received: from greer.hardwarefreak.com (mo-65-41-216-221.sta.embarqhsd.net [65.41.216.221]) by cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id 7gxzAC16rWTTTPHQ for ; Fri, 27 Apr 2012 07:03:47 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <4F9AA743.7020709@hardwarefreak.com> Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2012 09:03:47 -0500 From: Stan Hoeppner MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: A little RAID experiment References: <1335363423.4586.431.camel@montana.filmlight.ltd.uk> In-Reply-To: Reply-To: stan@hardwarefreak.com List-Id: XFS Filesystem from SGI List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com Errors-To: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com To: Stefan Ring Cc: Roger Willcocks , Linux fs XFS 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 _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs