On Thu, Aug 12, 1999 at 04:47:49PM -0400, James Manning wrote:
...
>
> subsequent mke2fs and bonnie's seemed fine, so this is most likely
> pretty safe to ignore, I suppose.
>
> here's the results for s/w raid5 on top of 4 h/w raid0's (20 drives)
>
> -------Sequential Output-------- ---Sequential Input-- --Random--
> -Per Char- --Block--- -Rewrite-- -Per Char- --Block--- --Seeks---
> MB K/sec %CPU K/sec %CPU K/sec %CPU K/sec %CPU K/sec %CPU /sec %CPU
> 2047 17893 99.0 21009 20.4 10397 27.9 15686 62.6 30820 48.7 841.7 6.9
>
> I'm sure these will get better (and maybe MUCH BETTER :) when KNI works.
I'd doubt that it would get much better because of that. Your CPUs can probably
already handle way beyond 1GB/s in the parity-calculation loop, and parity
is not calculated during reads anyway.
Did you experiment with different chunk-sizes, and did you set the block-size
on the e2fs to 4KB ?
And did you remember the -R stride= option ?
> Out of curiosity, any idea if bonnie is doing %5d somewhere and any
> rates over 100MB/sec would get cut-off?
Nope :) (sorry, don't have the source handy)
But a sync ; date ; dd if=/dev/md0 of=/dev/zero bs=1024k count=1024 ; date
should give you an idea about what's going on.
................................................................
: [EMAIL PROTECTED] : And I see the elder races, :
:.........................: putrid forms of man :
: Jakob Østergaard : See him rise and claim the earth, :
: OZ9ABN : his downfall is at hand. :
:.........................:............{Konkhra}...............:
