Thanks for the feedback guys. I'm looking forward to the day when we upgrade to SSDs.
For future reference, the bonnie++ numbers I was referring to are: Size: 63G Sequential Output: ------------------------ 396505 K/sec % CPU 21 Sequential Input: ------------------------ 401117 K/sec % CPU 21 Random Seeks: ---------------------- 650.7 /sec % CPU 25 I think a lot of my confusion resulted from expecting sequential reads to be 4x the speed of a single disk because the disks are in RAID10. I'm thinking now that the 4x only applies to random reads. On Sat, Mar 19, 2016 at 6:32 AM, Scott Marlowe <scott.marl...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Sat, Mar 19, 2016 at 4:29 AM, Scott Marlowe <scott.marl...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > Given the size of your bonnie test set and the fact that you're using > > RAID-10, the cache should make little or no difference. The RAID > > controller may or may not interleave reads between all four drives. > > Some do, some don't. It looks to me like yours doesn't. I.e. when > > reading it's not reading all 4 disks at once, but just 2, 1 from each > > pair. > > Point of clarification. It may be that if two processes are reading > the data set at once you'd get a sustained individual throughput that > matches what a single read can get. > -- *THIS IS A TEST*
