Hi Tim, On Thu, Jul 05, 2007 at 07:09:38AM -0600, Snider, Tim wrote: > I also found these ClustreFS performance results in the archives. > Can you provide details on the host configuration (processor, OS, > storage connection) that was used in these tests?
This node is a Sun Thumper, AKA Sun Fire X4500. Specifications are here: http://www.sun.com/servers/x64/x4500/specs.xml The OS used was RHEL 4, and the storage was the Thumper's builtin storage which is connected via SATA. Cheers, Jody > Thx, > Tim > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jody McIntyre > Sent: Friday, December 29, 2006 4:10 PM > To: lustre-devel@clusterfs.com > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: [Lustre-devel] Re: sgpdd-survey of Sun Thumper > > On Thu, Dec 14, 2006 at 04:34:06PM -0500, Jody McIntyre wrote: > > > My next plan is to test obdfilter-survey with various chunk and > > request sizes. Assuming 4MB IOs are preserved intact all the way to > > the MD layer, I expect similar results. I will then test even smaller > > > chunk sizes with both sgpdd-survey and obdfilter-survey. > > The obdfilter-surveys are still in progress, but attached is a revised > sgpdd-survey spreadsheet. As you can see, the 64K chunk size is worse, > sometimes significantly, than the 128K chunk size except for writes of > size 1M (which are slightly better with the 64K chunk size.) > > Therefore 128K chunk size is basically the sweet spot for a RAID 5 array > with 5 active devices on Thumper hardware. > > Cheers, > Jody -- _______________________________________________ Lustre-devel mailing list Lustre-devel@clusterfs.com https://mail.clusterfs.com/mailman/listinfo/lustre-devel
