Adrian Ulrich schrieb am 2006-08-01: > > suspect, particularly with 7200/min (s)ATA crap. > > Quoting myself (again): > >> A quick'n'dirty ZFS-vs-UFS-vs-Reiser3-vs-Reiser4-vs-Ext3 'benchmark' > > Yeah, the test ran on a single SATA-Harddisk (quick'n'dirty). > I'm so sorry but i don't have access to a $$$ Raid-System at home.
I'm not asking for you to perform testing on a $$$$ RAID system with SCSI or SAS, but I consider the obtained data (I am focussing on transactions per unit of time) highly suspicious, and suspect write caches might have contributed their share - I haven't seen a drive that shipped with write cache disabled in the past years. > > sdparm --clear=WCE /dev/sda # please. > > How about using /dev/emcpower* for the next benchmark? No, it is valid to run the test on commodity hardware, but if you (or the benchmark rather) is claiming "transactions", I tend to think "ACID", and I highly doubt any 200 GB SATA drive manages 3000 synchronous writes per second without causing either serious fragmentation or background block moving. This is a figure I'd expect for synchronous random access to RAM disks that have no seek and rotational latencies (and research for hybrid disks w/ flash or other nonvolatile fast random access media to cache actual rotating magnetic plattern access is going on elsewhere). I didn't mean to say your particular drive were crap, but 200GB SATA drives are low end, like it or not -- still, I have one in my home computer because these Samsung SP2004C are so nicely quiet. > I mighty be able to re-run it in a few weeks if people are interested > and if i receive constructive suggestions (= Postmark parameters, > mkfs options, etc..) I don't know Postmark, I did suggest to turn the write cache off. If your systems uses hdparm -W0 /dev/sda instead, go ahead. But you're right to collect and evaluate suggestions first if you don't want to run a new benchmark every day :) -- Matthias Andree
