On May 29, 2008, at 11:44 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > On Thu, May 29, 2008 at 02:04:21PM -0700, eric kustarz wrote: >>> >>> Currently both tools gives different view of io. While filebench >>> simulates real workload, it cannot show what vdbench shows. >>> E.g. we were doing some hardware array tests and it turned out >>> (using >>> vdbench) that the array works in a really strange way: sometimes its >>> IOPS jumps very high, sometimes it lows very much. There were >>> a few other tests where vdbench shows how IOPS behaves in each >>> second of workload. I am affraid filebench _currently_ cannot give >>> us >>> the same data. >> >> Good point. >> >> We actually have this via Xanadu, though i just tried it and it looks >> like Xanadu is not working. >> >> Also, at the UCSC benchmarking conference last monday we kicked >> around >> the idea of showing a distribution of results instead of just >> averages. > > Averages can be really misleading. They don't show in depth data. > > I remember another hardware arrays (yes, two arrays) test where > vdbench shows > that one array is a bit faster (more IOPS) then the other. While > filebench (which tries to simulate the real workloads) shows that that > the other aray is slightly faster. What is true ? I don't know. But I > wouldn't like to use just one tool. Both has its advantages and > disadvantages. And _both_ give much wider picture of how the storage > behaves in particular workload.
So that's disturbing. What workload were you running? eric _______________________________________________ perf-discuss mailing list perf-discuss@opensolaris.org
