Heitor A.M. Cardozo wrote:
Christopher Chan wrote:
ext3 again takes the slowest performing title overall as expected...in
fact it appears not much as changed fs vs fs wise since Bruce
Guenter's tests.
I agree but the values are more "acceptable" in comparision with others
filesystems. On Bruce tests it shows a very bad performance for reading.
Yes, reads are vastly improved at the cost of write performance. Weird.
XFS has like the best read response times too. XFS is looking very good
at the moment with just about the fastest performance in everything.
What io-scheduler is default on Centos 5? I assume you prefer read
performance to write performance. After all, it is for maildir use. Have
you tuned the box for read performance?
But I am surprised at the overall performance regressions in
comparison to 2.6.5/6 kernels with regards to deliveries vs amount of
writers.Heitor, you are using a 3ware 95xx or 96xx with BBU write
cache and write caching on right? How much RAM do you have for your
cache? How is your raid10 configured? I cannot believe a four disk
raid0 array can beat a software raid mirror of scsi disks as used by
Bruce Guenter.
3ware 9650SE with BBU and write cache on.
Available memory: 224 MB
Bus Type/Speed: PCIe/2.5 Gbps
RAID10: 4 RAID1 subunits with MAXTOR STM3500630AS 500GB SATA2
Yup, that is four disks versus a single linux mirrored scsi array. Write
performance cannot be that horrible now can it?
Thanks Heitor. Is the site down or something? I cannot access the
page....it is timing out.
The site is online now.
thanks.
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
