On Tuesday, 13 June 2000 at 16:39:01 -0700, Jaye Mathisen wrote:
>
> I was just curious what people's thoughts were on the potential "total
> system throughput" (whatever you choose it to be), wrt using software
> RAID.
>
> It would seem that software RAID would just kill big chunks of
> cache, es
Jaye Mathisen wrote:
>
> I was just curious what people's thoughts were on the potential "total
> system throughput" (whatever you choose it to be), wrt using software
> RAID.
>
> It would seem that software RAID would just kill big chunks of cache,
> especially CPU cache, moving lots of data th
I was just curious what people's thoughts were on the potential "total
system throughput" (whatever you choose it to be), wrt using software
RAID.
It would seem that software RAID would just kill big chunks of cache,
especially CPU cache, moving lots of data throught it to calcuate CRC's.
per
> > I have a drive that is rated at ~16 Meg/second, and indeed it delivers on
> > the
> > order of 15+ Meg/second. If I use Vinum to create a concatinated device
> > of 2 such units performance drops to 2.5 Meg/sec. This seems like a
> > drastic drop in performance.
>
> Indeed, if you're compa
ty bad write performance with the
> > default filesystem frag size. Increasing the frag size (via newfs),
> > increased performance substantially.
>
> That shouldn't have anything to do with it. If you see anything
> unusual in Vinum performance, please tell me.
It sh
via newfs),
> increased performance substantially.
That shouldn't have anything to do with it. If you see anything
unusual in Vinum performance, please tell me. It's easy to come to
incorrect conclusions about the cause of performance problems, and
disseminating them doesn't hel
Greg Lehey wrote:
> On Thursday, 17 June 1999 at 3:43:10 -0400, David E. Cross wrote:
> > I have a drive that is rated at ~16 Meg/second, and indeed it delivers on t
> he
> > order of 15+ Meg/second. If I use Vinum to create a concatinated device
> > of 2 such units performance drops to 2.5 Meg
On Thursday, 17 June 1999 at 15:50:10 +0300, Ville-Pertti Keinonen wrote:
>
> g...@lemis.com (Greg Lehey) writes:
>
>>> You've accidentally striped subdisks on the same drive? ;--)
>>>
>>> Like Greg Lehey said, you haven't really provided enough details.
>>
>> He did provide one detail, though; th
On Thursday, 17 June 1999 at 22:36:49 +0300, Narvi wrote:
>
> On Thu, 17 Jun 1999, Greg Lehey wrote:
>
>> On Thursday, 17 June 1999 at 11:10:08 +0300, Narvi wrote:
>>>
>>> On Thu, 17 Jun 1999, David E. Cross wrote:
>>>
I have a drive that is rated at ~16 Meg/second, and indeed it delivers on
On Thu, 17 Jun 1999, Greg Lehey wrote:
> On Thursday, 17 June 1999 at 11:10:08 +0300, Narvi wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, 17 Jun 1999, David E. Cross wrote:
> >
> >> I have a drive that is rated at ~16 Meg/second, and indeed it delivers on
> >> the
> >> order of 15+ Meg/second. If I use Vinum to creat
g...@lemis.com (Greg Lehey) writes:
> > You've accidentally striped subdisks on the same drive? ;--)
> >
> > Like Greg Lehey said, you haven't really provided enough details.
>
> He did provide one detail, though; this is a concatenated plex, not a
> striped one.
Or he at least *thinks* it's c
On Thursday, 17 June 1999 at 11:52:43 +0300, Ville-Pertti Keinonen wrote:
>
> cro...@cs.rpi.edu (David E. Cross) writes:
>
>> I have a drive that is rated at ~16 Meg/second, and indeed it delivers on the
>> order of 15+ Meg/second. If I use Vinum to create a concatinated device
>> of 2 such units
cro...@cs.rpi.edu (David E. Cross) writes:
> I have a drive that is rated at ~16 Meg/second, and indeed it delivers on the
> order of 15+ Meg/second. If I use Vinum to create a concatinated device
> of 2 such units performance drops to 2.5 Meg/sec. This seems like a
> drastic drop in performan
On Thursday, 17 June 1999 at 11:10:08 +0300, Narvi wrote:
>
> On Thu, 17 Jun 1999, David E. Cross wrote:
>
>> I have a drive that is rated at ~16 Meg/second, and indeed it delivers on the
>> order of 15+ Meg/second. If I use Vinum to create a concatinated device
>> of 2 such units performance drop
On Thursday, 17 June 1999 at 3:43:10 -0400, David E. Cross wrote:
> I have a drive that is rated at ~16 Meg/second, and indeed it delivers on the
> order of 15+ Meg/second. If I use Vinum to create a concatinated device
> of 2 such units performance drops to 2.5 Meg/sec. This seems like a
> dras
On Thursday, 17 June 1999 at 11:03:32 +0300, Pavel Narozhniy wrote:
> "David E. Cross" wrote:
>>
>> I have a drive that is rated at ~16 Meg/second, and indeed it delivers on the
>> order of 15+ Meg/second. If I use Vinum to create a concatinated device
>> of 2 such units performance drops to 2.5 M
On Thu, 17 Jun 1999, David E. Cross wrote:
> I have a drive that is rated at ~16 Meg/second, and indeed it delivers on the
> order of 15+ Meg/second. If I use Vinum to create a concatinated device
> of 2 such units performance drops to 2.5 Meg/sec. This seems like a
> drastic drop in performan
"David E. Cross" wrote:
>
> I have a drive that is rated at ~16 Meg/second, and indeed it delivers on the
> order of 15+ Meg/second. If I use Vinum to create a concatinated device
> of 2 such units performance drops to 2.5 Meg/sec. This seems like a
> drastic drop in performance. Any ideas what
I have a drive that is rated at ~16 Meg/second, and indeed it delivers on the
order of 15+ Meg/second. If I use Vinum to create a concatinated device
of 2 such units performance drops to 2.5 Meg/sec. This seems like a
drastic drop in performance. Any ideas what I am doin incorrectly?
--
David
19 matches
Mail list logo
