Steven Hartland wrote: >> Still I would argue that if you do not use a write size larger than >> what you have as real memory, that buffering in real memory is going >> to play a role.... > > > I think you miss read all the details here Willem. Sorry about that, if that is the case. > Original values: > Write: 150Mb/s > Read: 50Mb/s > Current value after tweeking, RAID stripe size, vfs.read_max and > MAXPHYS ( needs more testing now due to scotts warning ) > Write: 150Mb/s > Read: 200Mb/s > > Note: The test size was upped to 10Gb to avoid caching issues. That would certainly negate my assumption 10G is enough to regularly flush the buffer. >> Other than that I find 50Mb/s is IMHO reasonable high value for a >> RAID5 in writting. But it would require substantial more organised >> testing. DD is nothing more than a very crude indication of what to >> expect in real life. > > > dd was uses as it is a good quick indication of baseline sequential file > access > speed and as such highlighted a serious issue with the original > performance. That is well phrased English for what I was trying to say. I'm glad to see that it worked for you. And I'm certainly impressed by the numbers... This is on a 4 disk RAID5 with one hot spare??? --WjWReceived on Sun May 08 2005 - 19:22:57 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:38:34 UTC