I am concerned that these stats for bonnie are in fact pretty poor for the
hardware involved.  Could someone running SW RAID5 on similar hardware
comment on your bonnie findings?

I have a DAC960:

DAC960: ** DAC960 RAID Driver Version 2.2.0 Beta4 of 13 January 1999 **
DAC960: Copyright 1998-1999 by Leonard N. Zubkoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
DAC960#0: Configuring Mylex DAC960PG PCI RAID Controller DAC960#0:  
Firmware Version: 4.06-0-00, Channels: 2, Memory Size: 8MB DAC960#0:  PCI
Bus: 0, Device: 16, Function: 1, I/O Address: Unassigned DAC960#0:  PCI
Address: 0xFD4FE000 mapped at 0xD0800000, IRQ Channel: 11 DAC960#0:  
Controller Queue Depth: 64, Maximum Blocks per Command: 128 DAC960#0:  
Driver Queue Depth: 63, Maximum Scatter/Gather Segments: 33
DAC960#0:  Stripe Size: 64KB, Segment Size: 8KB, BIOS Geometry: 128/32

with 6 UW Quantum Viking II 4.5GB drives, three on each channel,
configured (by VA Research) into a Raid5 volume.  The system is a dual PII
450Mhz, running linux kernel 2.2.2 (a RedHat 5.1 + upgrades system), with
256MB ram.  Note, the bonnie file size is 500MB (about double phys. ram).

Here is the bonnie output (slightly edited to fit well in 74 columns):

File './Bonnie.4392', size: 524288000
Writing with putc()...done
Rewriting...done
Writing intelligently...done
Reading with getc()...done
Reading intelligently...done
Seeker 1...Seeker 2...Seeker 3...start 'em...done...done...done...
       -------Sequential Output-------- ---Sequential Input-- --Random--
       -Per Char- --Block--- -Rewrite-- -Per Char- --Block--- --Seeks---
   MB  K/sec %CPU K/sec %CPU K/sec %CPU K/sec %CPU K/sec %CPU  /sec %CPU
   500  3742 46.8  4623  6.7  2604  7.9  6614 72.9 13314 14.6 183.4 3.2

vmstat shows blocks in and out maxing out at 9000, but typically in th
4500-5500 range at any given time.

If these are in fact poor numbers, what is wrong with my system.  I feel
like I should be seeing numbers 5 times these.


-- 
/==============================\
| David Mansfield              |
| [EMAIL PROTECTED]             |
\==============================/


Reply via email to