[cwimmer@hostname bonnie++-1.03e]$ ./bonnie++ -d . -s 50000 -m P410 -f
Writing intelligently...done
Rewriting...done
Reading intelligently...done
start 'em...done...done...done...
Create files in sequential order...done.
Stat files in sequential order...done.
Delete files in sequential order...done.
Create files in random order...done.
Stat files in random order...done.
Delete files in random order...done.
Version 1.03e ------Sequential Output------ --Sequential Input- --Random-
-Per Chr- --Block-- -Rewrite- -Per Chr- --Block-- --Seeks--
Machine Size K/sec %CP K/sec %CP K/sec %CP K/sec %CP K/sec %CP /sec %CP
P410 50000M 68392 12 21153 3 116423 4 216.8 0
------Sequential Create------ --------Random Create--------
-Create-- --Read--- -Delete-- -Create-- --Read--- -Delete--
files /sec %CP /sec %CP /sec %CP /sec %CP /sec %CP /sec %CP
16 22238 33 +++++ +++ +++++ +++ +++++ +++ +++++ +++ +++++ +++
P410,50000M,,,68392,12,21153,3,,,116423,4,216.8,0,16,22238,33,+++++,+++,+++++,+++,+++++,+++,+++++,+++,+++++,+++
On 8/11/11 5:15 PM, "Mohit Anchlia" <[email protected]> wrote:
On Thu, Aug 11, 2011 at 3:26 PM, Charles Wimmer <[email protected]> wrote:
> We currently use P410s in 12 disk system. Each disk is set up as a RAID0
> volume. Performance is at least as good as a bare disk.
Can you please share what throughput you see with P410s? Are these SATA or SAS?
>
>
> On 8/11/11 3:23 PM, "GOEKE, MATTHEW (AG/1000)" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> If I read that email chain correctly then they were referring to the classic
> JBOD vs multiple disks striped together conversation. The conversation that
> was started here is referring to JBOD vs 1 RAID 0 per disk and the effects of
> the raid controller on those independent raids.
>
> Matt
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Kai Voigt [mailto:[email protected]]
> Sent: Thursday, August 11, 2011 5:17 PM
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: Re: Question about RAID controllers and hadoop
>
> Yahoo did some testing 2 years ago:
> http://markmail.org/message/xmzc45zi25htr7ry
>
> But updated benchmark would be interesting to see.
>
> Kai
>
> Am 12.08.2011 um 00:13 schrieb GOEKE, MATTHEW (AG/1000):
>
>> My assumption would be that having a set of 4 raid 0 disks would actually be
>> better than having a controller that allowed pure JBOD of 4 disks due to the
>> cache on the controller. If anyone has any personal experience with this I
>> would love to know performance numbers but our infrastructure guy is doing
>> tests on exactly this over the next couple days so I will pass it along once
>> we have it.
>>
>> Matt
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Bharath Mundlapudi [mailto:[email protected]]
>> Sent: Thursday, August 11, 2011 5:00 PM
>> To: [email protected]
>> Subject: Re: Question about RAID controllers and hadoop
>>
>> True, you need a P410 controller. You can create RAID0 for each disk to make
>> it as JBOD.
>>
>>
>> -Bharath
>>
>>
>>
>> ________________________________
>> From: Koert Kuipers <[email protected]>
>> To: [email protected]
>> Sent: Thursday, August 11, 2011 2:50 PM
>> Subject: Question about RAID controllers and hadoop
>>
>> Hello all,
>> We are considering using low end HP proliant machines (DL160s and DL180s)
>> for cluster nodes. However with these machines if you want to do more than 4
>> hard drives then HP puts in a P410 raid controller. We would configure the
>> RAID controller to function as JBOD, by simply creating multiple RAID
>> volumes with one disk. Does anyone have experience with this setup? Is it a
>> good idea, or am i introducing a i/o bottleneck?
>> Thanks for your help!
>> Best, Koert
>> This e-mail message may contain privileged and/or confidential information,
>> and is intended to be received only by persons entitled
>> to receive such information. If you have received this e-mail in error,
>> please notify the sender immediately. Please delete it and
>> all attachments from any servers, hard drives or any other media. Other use
>> of this e-mail by you is strictly prohibited.
>>
>> All e-mails and attachments sent and received are subject to monitoring,
>> reading and archival by Monsanto, including its
>> subsidiaries. The recipient of this e-mail is solely responsible for
>> checking for the presence of "Viruses" or other "Malware".
>> Monsanto, along with its subsidiaries, accepts no liability for any damage
>> caused by any such code transmitted by or accompanying
>> this e-mail or any attachment.
>>
>>
>> The information contained in this email may be subject to the export control
>> laws and regulations of the United States, potentially
>> including but not limited to the Export Administration Regulations (EAR) and
>> sanctions regulations issued by the U.S. Department of
>> Treasury, Office of Foreign Asset Controls (OFAC). As a recipient of this
>> information you are obligated to comply with all
>> applicable U.S. export laws and regulations.
>>
>>
>
> --
> Kai Voigt
> [email protected]
>
>
>
>
>
>
