On Thu, 30 Jan 2003 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Matthew N. Dodd" writes:
> >On Wed, 29 Jan 2003, David Gilbert wrote:
> >So involving NFS isn't really going to make that much of a difference.
>
> Yes, it sure would.
nfs1:/foo/foo1 -> md1
nfs2:/foo/foo2 -> md2
ccd0 64 none md1 md2
# bonnie -s 16m
...
-------Sequential Output-------- ---Sequential Input-- --Random--
-Per Char- --Block--- -Rewrite-- -Per Char- --Block--- --Seeks---
Machine MB K/sec %CPU K/sec %CPU K/sec %CPU K/sec %CPU K/sec %CPU /sec
%CPU
16 783 7.0 629 0.6 862 0.7 10813 95.1 210575 93.2 21433.1 98.8
Ignore the reads here. Writes seem good for a half-duplex 10baseT
network. The NFS servers aren't very fast either. I'd say 600kb/sec+ is
pretty reasonable.
# rawio -a /dev/ccd0 -s 16777216
Random read Sequential read Random write Sequential write
ID K/sec /sec K/sec /sec K/sec /sec K/sec /sec
ccd0 13192.4 789 0.0 0 13200.1 790 0.0 0
I'm not sure what to make of this.
I'll try with larger files when I get home and add a 3rd server.
--
| Matthew N. Dodd | '78 Datsun 280Z | '75 Volvo 164E | FreeBSD/NetBSD |
| [EMAIL PROTECTED] | 2 x '84 Volvo 245DL | ix86,sparc,pmax |
| http://www.jurai.net/~winter | For Great Justice! | ISO8802.5 4ever |
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
