On Jun 3, 2008, at 11:26 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > On Tue, Jun 03, 2008 at 03:32:47PM -0700, eric kustarz wrote: >> >> On May 29, 2008, at 11:44 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >>> [...] >>> >>> 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? > > OLTP >
Isn't this the case of an application (e.g. vdbench, filebench) having slightly differing behavior and the underlying storage being a better match to one or the other? I am not surprised by this. If you were to say the workload was something like sequential read, then it would be a surprise. Then the question becomes: what benchmark most closely resembles the behavior of the applications of the most interest. IMO, filebench has the greatest potential for providing the closest match when scaling across system types and attempting to simulate the complexities of application intra-dependence. Spencer _______________________________________________ perf-discuss mailing list perf-discuss@opensolaris.org
